The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 633–648 | Cite as

The struggle to technicise in education policy

  • Radhika Gorur
  • Jill P. Koyama


In contemporary education policy, simplified technical accounts of policy problems and solutions are being produced with the use of numeric calculations. These calculations are seen as clear and unbiased, capable of revealing “what works” and identifying “best practices.” In this piece, the authors use resources from the material-semiotic approach of actor-network theory to discuss how calculations have begun to serve as a subtle infrastructure underpinning the way we understand and organise our world. They demonstrate the usefulness of the approach in tracing the technicisation of policy by deploying it to qualitative studies of like-school comparisons in the two unexpectedly linked locations—New York City and Australia. The authors reveal how technical accounts are precarious and need constant maintenance to endure, even as they increasingly becoming routine, curtailing the policy imagination and limiting the spaces of contestation. It is for this reason, they argue, that a deeper understanding and sustained critique of such accounts is of pressing importance.


Education policy Actor-network theory Accountability Transparency 


  1. Angus, M. (2011). Rewarding “great” teachers? Retrieved January 10, 2012 from
  2. Attard, M. (2008). Joel Klein, New York City Schools Chancellor. Retrieved July 14, 2010 from
  3. Barry, A. (2002). The anti-political economy. Economy and Society, 31(2), 268–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Acting in an uncertain world:An essay on technical democracy (G. Burchell, Trans.). Cambridge, MI: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Callon, M., & Muniesa, F. (2005). Peripheral vision: Economic markets as calculative collective devices. Organization Studies, 26(8), 1229–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cramer, P. (2009). Duncan: NYC reform initiatives a model for stimuls spending. Gotham Schools. Accessed 1 March 2009.
  7. Ewing, J. (2011). Mathematical intimidation: Driven by the data. Notices of the AMS, 58(5), 667–673.Google Scholar
  8. Fenwick, T. J., & Edwards, R. (2011). Considering materiality in educational policy: messy objects and multiple reals [Article]. Educational Theory, 61(6), 709–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gale, T., & Lingard, B. (Eds.). (2010). Educational research by association: AARE presidential addresses and the field of educational research. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  10. Gillard, J. (2008). Speech. Paper presented at the ACER Research Conference. Retrieved from
  11. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Klenowski, V. (2009). Raising the stakes: The challenges for teacher assessment. Accessed 1 Jan 2010.
  13. Koyama, J., & Varenne, H. (2012). Assembling and dissembling: Policy as productive play. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Labaree, D. F. (2011). The lure of statistics for educational researchers. Educational Theory, 61(6), 621–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lather, P. (2005). Scientism and scientificity in the rage for accountability: A feminist deconstruction. Paper presented at the First International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). Oxford: Blackwell/Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational research. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mandinah, E. B., Rivas, L., Light, D., Heinze, C., & Honey, M. (2006). The impact of data-driven decision making tools on educational practice: A systems analysis of six school districts. Paper presented at the American Edcuational Research Assocation Annual Meeting.Google Scholar
  21. Ministers' Media Centre (2008a). Transparency, national literacy and numeracy, National Curriculum. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from
  22. Ministers' Media Centre (2008b). Speech: Leading transformational change in schools. Retrieved November 20, 2008 from
  23. Ministers' Media Centre (2008c). Radio interview 4BC School transparency agenda, rewarding quality teaching. Media Release. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from
  24. Ministers' Media Centre (2010). National press club address: Delivering the education revolution. Retrieved February 28, 2010 from
  25. Mulgan, G. (2003). Government, knowledge and the business of policy-making. National Institute of Governance Conference, Facing the Future, Canberra, April 23–24.Google Scholar
  26. Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter, T. (2003). Measurement, objectivity, and trust. Measurement, 1(4), 241–255.Google Scholar
  28. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rose, N. (1991). Governing by numbers: Figuring out democracy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 673–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge, MI: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rudd, K. (2007). Campaign launch speech, 14 November. Brisbane.Google Scholar
  32. Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Victoria InstituteVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Educational Policy Studies and Practice, College of EducationUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations