Search

Improving schooling by reducing achievement gaps based on family background has been on the agenda of school governance worldwide for more than three decades. International benchmarking like the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is used to find models of best practice in effective school governance. Enlarging school autonomy, strengthening school management, and enhancing accountability have emerged as widely recommended and globally spreading governance tools. However, we do not know how much these tools make a difference between schools. To close this research gap, we conduct a multilevel regression analysis, which explores the association of student and average school socioeconomic status, migration background, school disciplinary climate and governance tools with student PISA scores. The United States, Canada, South Korea, and Singapore in 2009 and 2015 serve as test cases. Our findings indicate that school governance tools do not reduce achievement gaps.

The OECD is a key player in global education policy advice and part of the edu-business network. This network comprises of companies, philanthropies, consulting agencies and think tanks profiting from educational governance reforms and large-scale testing. This article investigates the structure of the OECD global policy network and its capability to bring together different types of expertise. To map the global policy advisors network, we introduce the concepts of boundary-spanning actors and field-crossing social capital. Using network analysis, we apply these concepts to investigate the embeddedness of the OECD in different social fields and the global field of power. Our findings indicate that the global network of policy advisors coordinates different forms of expertise by installing a system of patronage, consisting of a small number of key players and large numbers of actors that set education reforms in motion. We exemplify this result with McKinsey & Company.

We assess the empirical development of scientific homogenization and differentiation processes in terms of group development comparing U.S. and German sociology from 2004 to 2019. We introduce hierarchical multi-layered Bayesian stochastic block models to the issue of scientific group development. Based on publication data from Scopus, we analyze group formation simultaneously as collaboration networks, reference networks, and topical networks. Employing this method allows us to trace back the temporal dynamics of multidimensional group development and formation for each national scientific field. Overall, the findings indicate clear path dependencies in both fields that have been shaping processes of differentiation and homogenization in U.S. and German sociology and that continue to impact on the formation, stabilization, and dissolution of scientific groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we apply Max Weber's ideal types of fief and benefice feudalism to elite and non-elite chemistry departments in the USA. We develop a theoretical analogy of academic feudalism in regard to three dimensions: power relations, engagement with companies, and the impact of structural changes on the autonomy of scholars. We use a mixed methods approach to track changes in productivity and industrial collaboration on a departmental level and the researcher's understanding of research autonomy on the individual level. On the departmental level, our findings suggest that scholars located at elite departments are able to utilize federal and industrial resources to increase publications over time. On the individual level, we establish that researchers in both segments perceive their autonomy as being very high, whereas practical autonomy differs according to department. While scholars at elite departments remain relatively autonomous in practice, scholars at non-elite departments often tend to tailor their research to specific requirements to receive funding.

The OECD is a key player in global education policy advice and part of the edu-business network. This network comprises of companies, philanthropies, consulting agencies and think tanks profiting from educational governance reforms and large-scale testing. This article investigates the structure of the OECD global policy network and its capability to bring together different types of expertise. To map the global policy advisors network, we introduce the concepts of boundary-spanning actors and field-crossing social capital. Using network analysis, we apply these concepts to investigate the embeddedness of the OECD in different social fields and the global field of power. Our findings indicate that the global network of policy advisors coordinates different forms of expertise by installing a system of patronage, consisting of a small number of key players and large numbers of actors that set education reforms in motion. We exemplify this result with McKinsey & Company. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rankings are part and parcel of the neoliberal agenda in science aiming at increasing the competitive allocation of funds among universities. This article focuses on the decreasing power of renewal in science as a result of this agenda particularly because of its increasingly consolidated stratification of the academic system into élite and mass institutions. A comparison based on data from the "Academic Ranking of World Universities" of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University between the less stratified German system, the more strongly stratified British system, and the most strongly stratified, though at its heart still diverse US-American system provides a first test of the hypotheses.