Search

The use of automated decision-making systems is increasing in education. While the potential impacts of ADM are becoming widely known amongst experts, the perspectives of those impacted by ADM remain peripheral. To broaden expertise and participation, this paper proposes that ADM needs to be considered as a sociotechnical controversy, as part of a technical democracy approach that utilises hybrid forums. Following Callon and colleagues, in this paper, technical democracy refers to the process of learning through uncertainty about sociotechnical controversies, and hybrid forums refer to the specific sites of democratisation. This paper first identifies key uses and concerns with ADM in education. Second, it proposes that restricted capacity for participation can be addressed through technical democracy. Last, it proposes that hybrid forums can create moments of democratisation through shared uncertainty, material politics, and collective experimentation.

There is a broad impetus across policy and institutional domains to expand public engagement and involvement with emerging technology research and innovation. Yet innovative theory, methods, and practices to critically explore algorithmic system controversies and democratic possibilities are still in nascent form. In this paper, we bring together thinking about public pedagogy, infrastructuring, and democratic design to introduce a novel "pedagogic encounters toolkit," where pedagogic encounters are defined as: opportunities for learning together about the emergence, relationality, and uncertainty of algorithmic system controversies. A framework with accompanying practices and examples is outlined for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to creatively and critically explore these pedagogic encounters within specific contexts. We conclude with implications for future investigations attentive to making democratic designs in a datafied society. In doing so, this paper informs theoretical and methodological innovation to the study of algorithmic system controversies and democratising technology.

Research on Artificial Intelligence, especially in the field of machine learning, has exploded in the twenty-first century. AI research in universities has long been funded by a combination of government and corporate sources. The funding of AI research in the contemporary university includes technology companies as both funders and generators of research areas. This paper looks at the links between technology companies and AI research in three areas: first, the ways in which technology companies influence both the content and practices of AI research in universities; second, how university research policies enable conditions that blur traditional boundaries between corporate and academic AI research; and third, how an ethos of 'open science', that is increasingly corporatised, moves ideas about AI from universities to companies. We conclude that technology companies influence AI research within established feedback loops in the transformed relationships between economy, society, research, and the contemporary university.

This paper introduces the concept of infrastructure into discussions on climate change and education. We focus on the links between the increased use of digital data and the central role of data infrastructures in education, and the energy infrastructure needed to support their growing use in schools and school systems. We elaborate a need for a greater accounting of the climate and related social costs of these interwoven digital and energy infrastructures of schooling. We suggest this is part of the 'disposition' of the infrastructures of schooling that should be weighed into decisions on whether and how to continue with digital technologies in schools. By acknowledging the climate and environmental incommensurability of digital infrastructures, education leaders and young people can more fully understand their dispositions and their costs. We propose three implications for education governance that entail greater consideration of the limits of current school climate change infrastructures such as 'eco school' programs and EdTech 'AI for good' initiatives, pushes for 'computing within limits' without substantial changes, and current school governance practices which unnecessarily rely on digital infrastructures. Instead, what is needed may be a reversal of the extensive use of digital infrastructures by schools and education governance bodies.

In this analytical essay, part of Harvard Educational Review's symposium on Platform Studies in Education, Ben Williamson, Kalervo N. Gulson, Carlo Perrotta, and Kevin Witzenberger argue that global technology companies have begun acting as governance organizations in education. Their analysis focuses on the global technology company Amazon, which has begun penetrating education through a connective architecture of digital infrastructure and platform services. Looking at Amazon technical documentation and publicly available materials, the authors identify and examine five interlocking governance operations and their effects: inscribing commercial business models on the education sector, habituating educational users to Amazon technologies, creating new interfaces with educational institutions, platforming third-party education providers on the cloud, and seeking market dominance over provision and control of key information infrastructures of education. In showing how Amazon is potentially developing infrastructural dominance in the education sector as part of its transformation into a statelike corporation with significant social, technical, economic, and political power to govern and control state and public services, this article highlights the broader implications of increasing technological governance in education.

Artificial Intelligence has the potential to be an important part of education governance. It is already being built into everything from business intelligence platforms to real-time online testing. In this paper, we aim to understand how AI becomes, and forms, a legitimate part of authority in contemporary education governance in what we call the automated education governance assemblage, that incorporates technology companies and AI-supported products used in education. We focus on EduTech Australia -- an education technology trade show in Sydney -- as a way to look at: (1) how the different aspects of automated governance are connected at EduTech, including the relations between different participants, companies and products; and (2) how the automated governance assemblage works to legitimise and constitute EduTech as a policy space and site of new authorities in education governance.

Pre-emption describes a system of automated knowledge creation and intervention that steers the present towards a desirable future, by building on knowledge derived from the past. Folding together temporalities makes it impossible to disprove pre-emption. It is increasingly featured within EdTech, introducing new forms of automated governance into education. This paper examines how students and EdTech come together to make pre-emption possible, not as a single event but as a normalised governance instrument. For this, we introduce Lucy Suchman's idea of configuration to examine pre-emptive EdTech. The paper presents three openings into the configuration of students and pre-emptive EdTech. These include observations from an EdTech trade show; interviews with insiders of technology companies; and analysis of accepted papers to a learning analytics conference. We conclude the data used at the heart of pre-emptive EdTech seeks to exclude students and configures them as absent. Yet, its interventions have material consequences.

In this special issue response paper, we pick up from prior discussions to suggest areas where we think policy sociology can benefit from further conversation and research. In particular, we bring together our respective readings and work on policy mobilities, in conversation with the contributions of this special issue, to think further about what policy mobilities and related orientations can bring to the development of policy sociology. We specifically focus our attention on four areas for further conceptual and methodological extension in relation to policy mobilities and related approaches in policy sociology of education: (1) temporality; (2) scale; (3) land; and, finally, (4) methodological diversity. In doing so, we advocate against 'fast' readings of literature from other fields, while emphasizing the value of transdisciplinary work in policy sociology and critical policy studies.

New cognitive infrastructures are emerging as digital platforms and artificial intelligence enable new forms of automated thinking that shape human decision-making. This paper (a) offers a new theoretical perspective on automated thinking in education policy and (b) illustrates how automated thinking is emerging in one specific policy context. We report on a case study of a policy analysis unit ('The Centre') in an Australian state education department that has been implementing a BI strategy since 2013. The Centre is now focused on using BI to support complex decision making and improve learning outcomes, and their strategy describes this focus as becoming 'information centric'. The theoretical framework for our analysis draws on infrastructure studies and philosophy of technology, particularly Luciana Parisi's recent work on automated thinking. We analyse technical documentation and semi-structured interview data to describe the enactment of a BI strategy in The Centre, with a focus on how new approaches to data analytics are shaping decision-making. Our analysis shows that The Centre is developing a cognitive infrastructure that is already creating new conditions for education policy making, and we conclude with a call for research designs that enable pragmatic exploration of what these infrastructures can do.

Digital platforms have become central to interaction and participation in contemporary societies. New forms of 'platformized education' are rapidly proliferating across education systems, bringing logics of datafication, automation, surveillance, and interoperability into digitally mediated pedagogies. This article presents a conceptual framework and an original analysis of Google Classroom as an infrastructure for pedagogy. Its aim is to establish how Google configures new forms of pedagogic participation according to platform logics, concentrating on the cross-platform interoperability made possible by application programming interfaces (APIs). The analysis focuses on three components of the Google Classroom infrastructure and its configuration of pedagogic dynamics: Google as platform proprietor, setting the 'rules' of participation; the API which permits third-party integrations and data interoperability, thereby introducing automation and surveillance into pedagogic practices; and the emergence of new 'divisions of labour', as the working practices of school system administrators, teachers and guardians are shaped by the integrated infrastructure, while automated AI processes undertake the 'reverse pedagogy' of learning insights from the extraction of digital data. The article concludes with critical legal and practical ramifications of platform operators such as Google participating in education.

The use of data to govern education is increasingly supported by the use of knowledge-based technologies, including algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI), and tracking technologies [Fenwick, T., E. Mangez, and J. Ozga. 2014. "Governing Knowledge: Comparison, Knowledge-Based Technologies and Expertise in the Regulation of Education." New York, NY: Routledge]. New forms of datafication and automation enable governments and other powerful stakeholders to draw from the past to construct images of educational futures in order to steer the present. This paper examines the competing conceptions of time and temporality that AI posits for policy and practice when used to anticipate educational futures. We argue that most educational futures are already delineated, and machinic expressions of time are the chronologies, habits, and memories that the educated subject inhabits rather than produces. If resetting educational habits and memories can be an alternative to algorithmic anticipations of education then we believe, paradoxically, that machines may help to reset them by accelerating them.

Drawing on the aesthetic theory of Jacques Rancière and the Lacanian conception of lack, this paper offers an intervention into the notion of subjectivity which can be applied in critical studies of education. Critiquing the progressive and knowledge-oriented ideology of neoliberal systems, Rancière depicts a world in which politics turns out to delimit the subject's perceptual experience and in this way, argues that what remains out of this ideological demarcation is susceptible to a challenge of the social order on which an ideology is based. While Rancière presents a meticulous reading of current pedagogic institutions, Lacan provides us with a definition of subject having the capacity to challenge the delimiting social order. The latter is achieved by theorising a subject inflicted by a double lack, realised both at the subjective and objective levels. This double negativity gives rise to the emergence of desire in the subject which in Lacan is the source of emancipation as it makes the subject not be satisfied by a given achievement, hence replacing one desire after another.

In this paper, we are interested in the notion of multiple ways of thinking, knowing and transforming life, namely an increasing capacity to intervene in "life" as a "molecular biopolitics," and the changing ways in which "life" can be understood computationally. We identify and speculate on the ways different ideas of life, drawing from humanities, social, life and computing sciences, may impact the ways we think about and know education policy. We focus on key aspects of education policy around self-responsibilisation and choice, new forms of network governance and the move to education data science. The paper examines what is required to understand how advancements in the life and computing sciences may be implemented within educational institutions and organisations, and what political and ethical issues might pertain to the challenges these new advancements bring to educational institutions.

In response to the acute public health crisis of COVID‐19 in 2020 and 2021, governments in Australia and around the world rushed to institute technologies to track human bodies with "live" surveillance. In Australia, "lockdowns" halted human mobilities in all states for different periods, and technologies for tracking bodies and collecting data were introduced after and between physical lockdowns. In this article, we analyse both the monitoring technologies developed to contend with COVID‐19 and the complex array of regulations and public health orders governing space and mobility in New South Wales and Sydney. Our focus on monitoring technologies is based on the COVIDSafe App (National) and the New South Wales COVIDSafe Check‐in App. These apps enabled the surveillance of individual mobilities before their sudden demise apparently unrelated to the public health scenario at the time. We argue that these technologies are examples of sensory power which rapidly enrolled human bodies in systems of surveillance that were difficult to unravel through 2022 and beyond. Our focus on regulations and public health orders outlines the shifting legal geographies during public health crisis and the ways these were enacted as mobility restrictions, surveillance, and punishment in western Sydney. We argue that the scars of the peak pandemic will endure in particular locations and communities, signalling the persistence of sensory power beyond the life of specific COVID‐19 tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary education policy involves the integration of novel forms of data and the creation of new data platforms, in addition to the infusion of business principles into school governance networks, and intensification of socio-technical relations. In this paper, we examine how "computational rationality" may be understood as intensifying of an instrumental set of logics in educational governance and decision making, and/or as opening up new explorations around the uncertainty and incompleteness of policy. We suggest that policy rationalities focused on prediction, transparency and data provide the conditions of possibility for Artificial Intelligence to be integrated into, and intensify aspects of, what we term "computational education policy".

The argument of this paper is that new methodologies associated with the emerging field of "policy mobilities" can be applied, and are in fact required, to examine and research the networked and relational, or "topological", nature of globalised education policy, which cuts across the new spaces of policymaking and new modes of global educational governance. In this paper, we examine the methodological issues pertaining to the study of the "movement" of policy. Informed by contemporary methodological thinking around social network analysis and the ethnographic notion of "following the policy", we discuss the limitations of these approaches to adequately address presence in policy network analysis, and the problem of representing speed and intensity of policy mobility, even while these attempt to solve the problem of relationality and territoriality. We conclude that the methodologies of policy mobility are inexorably intertwined with the (constantly) changing phenomena under examination, and hence require what Lury and Wakeford describe as "inventive methods".

In this article, we problematize the establishment of an Africentric Alternative School in Toronto, Canada. We argue that policy, and race and racializations cannot be understood outside of, or immune to, neoliberalism. We contend that policy is a form of racial biopolitics, and race is now produced through neoliberal markets, in conjunction with earlier, liberal categories. We conclude that neoliberalism has produced new forms of racial biopolitics; whereas the state is much less overtly involved in producing and arranging racializations. Instead, neoliberal education policy has transferred or downloaded these forms of racial biopolitics onto populations which are now "free" and "empowered" to produce and maintain variable raciologies.

This article discusses the idea of "difference" in relation to "schools of recognition." The analysis is based on a three-year study that mapped the development of the Africentric Alternative School in the Toronto District School Board. Within, we review the concept of difference and juxtapose it with Gilles Deleuze's concept of "difference-in-itself" as a way to think about educational policy enactments. In order to understand how difference and recognition were enacted--and enacting--we examine how the idea "faciality" positioned eight key people in the development of the school.

This paper examines the epistemologies and ontologies of education policy studies. Our aim is to posit a reinvigoration of policy studies to hedge against undue ossification and co-option of critical policy studies. We do so by arguing for the need to develop new concepts for policy studies using the "posts" (e.g., post-structuralism and post-humanism). The paper aims to create a vocabulary and conceptual contribution to the new ways of undertaking, and new ontologies of, policy studies that are emerging as part of what we term "policy scientificity 3.0."

An editorial is presented on education arising from socio-technical controversies related to the use of algorithms. Topics include grades standardisation algorithm to calculate proxy grades for cancelled examinations sparked a range of unintended consequences, protests, and public trust issues; and education arising from socio-technical controversies related to the use of algorithms.