Educational Theory in an Era of Knowledge Capitalism

Abstract

Two related aspects of the present ‘knowledge capitalism’ stage of globalisation are discussed in this article: the transformation of education to make it more directly supportive of educational growth and competition, and the growing demands on educational research to provide scientific evidence for education policy and practice, using narrowly defined methods and techniques. It is argued that both developments have profound consequences for the construction and use of educational theory, and the vital need for critical discussion and communication in this respect is emphasised.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a British analysis of the research evidence of the effects of the Swedish free schools and conclusions for the British context, see e.g. Allen (2010).

  2. 2.

    See e.g. Whitty (2010), Yates and Collins (2010), Young (2008), Young and Muller (2010).

  3. 3.

    In some very interesting studies, Scott Davies, Linda Quirke and Janice Aurini have empirically tested such assumptions of neo-institutional theory on cases of public schools, private elite schools and new private sector school in Ontario (Aurini 2006; Davies and Quirke 2007).

  4. 4.

    For example, teachers´ work is radically changed when they are expected to execute pre-made instructional packages rather than building on professional skills. The free school combine Kunskapsskolan, also exported internationally, is illustrative. Here teachers are expected to follow a centrally prescribed pedagogical model of individualized student learning in defined stages. As Ylva Ståhle concluded in her thesis on Kunskapsskolan: The working method is not negotiable and it is expected to operate similarly in all schools. (Ståhle 2006, p. 152).

  5. 5.

    http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/about_us/index.php.

  6. 6.

    (18) SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH STANDARDS—

    (A) The term ‘‘scientifically based research standards’’ means research standards that—

    (i) apply rigorous, systematic, and objective methodology to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and

    (ii) present findings and make claims that are appropriate to and supported by the methods that have been employed.

    (B) The term includes, appropriate to the research being conducted—

    (i) employing systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;

    (ii) involving data analyses that are adequate to support the general findings;

    (iii) relying on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable data;

    (iv) making claims of causal relationships only in random assignment experiments or other designs (to the extent such designs substantially eliminate plausible competing explanations for the obtained results);

    (v) ensuring that studies and methods are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, to offer the opportunity to build systematically on the findings of the research;

    (vi) obtaining acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or approval by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review; and

    (vii) using research designs and methods appropriate to the research question posed. (the U.S. Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002).

  7. 7.

    http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/secondary-analysis.

References

  1. Allen, R. (2010). Replicating Swedish ‘free school’ reforms in England. Research in Public Policy, Summer, 2010, 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arreman Erixon, I., & Holm, A.-S. (2011). Privatisation of public education? The emergence of independent upper secondary schools in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson, E. (2000). In defence of ideas, or why ‘what works’ is not enough. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson, E. (2004). Thinking outside the box: An exercise in heresy. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aurini, J. (2006). Crafting legitimation projects: An institutional analysis of private education businesses. Socio-logical Forum, 21(1), 83–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34, 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ball, S. J. (2007). Education Plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.

  8. Ball, S. J., & Youdell, D. (2008). Hidden privatisation in education. Brussels: Education International. http://download.ei-ie.org/docs/IRISDocuments/Research%20Website%20Documents/2009-00034-01-E.pdf Accessed July 1, 2011.

  9. Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bernstein, B., & Solomon, J. (1999). ‘Pedagogy, identity and the construction of a theory of symbolic control’: Basil Bernstein questioned by Joseph Salomon. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boden, R., & Epstein, D. (2006). Managing the research imagination? Globalisation and research in higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(2), 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brown, P., Green, A., & Lauder, H. (2001). High skills. Globalization, competitiveness and skill formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  15. Conservatives. (2007). Raising the bar, closing the gap. An action plan for schools to raise standards, create more good school places and make opportunity more real. Policy Green Paper No. 1. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sysfiles/Education/documents/2007/11/20/newopps.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2010.

  16. Dale, R., & Robertson, S. L. (2003). Editorial: Introduction. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Davies, S., & Quirke, L. (2007). The impact of sector on school organizations: Institutional and market logics. Sociology of Education, 80(1), 66–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning. Towards the learning society. http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2010.

  19. Grek, S. (2008). From symbols to numbers: The shifting technologies of education governance in Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 208–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grek, S., & Lawn, M. (2009). A short history of europeanizing education. The new political work of calculating the future. European Education, 41(1), 32–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hammersley, M. (2001). On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: A ‘narrative’ response to Evans & Benefield. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 543–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). Teaching as a research-based profession: possibilities and prospects, Teacher Training Agency annual lecture 1996. London: Teacher Training Agency. http://www.bera.ac.uk/files/resourcesfiles/educationalresearch/hargreaves_1996.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2011.

  24. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2011). The OECD, globalisation and education policy. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Rigor and relevance redux: Director’s biennial. Report to Congress (IES 2009–6010). Washington, DC. http://ies.ed.gov/director/pdf/20096010.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2010.

  26. Jessop, B. (2006). State- and regulation-theoretical perspectives on the European Union and the failure of the Lisbon Agenda. Competition and Change, 10(2), 141–161.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jessop, B., Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (2008). The knowledge-based economy and higher education in Europe. London: Sense.

  28. Lareau, A., & Barnhouse Walters, P. (2010). What counts as credible research? Teachers College Record. ID number: 15915. http://www.tcrecord.org.

  29. Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Governmental intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 15–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lundahl, L. (2005). Swedish, European, Global. In D. Coulby & E. Zambeta (Eds.), Globalization and Nationalism in Education. World Yearbook of Education 2005 (pp. 147–164). London: Routledge Falmer.

  31. Lundahl, L. (2007). Swedish, European, global: The transformation of the Swedish welfare state. In B. Lingard & J. Ozga (Eds.), The routledgeFalmer reader in education policy and politics (pp. 117–130). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Martens, K., & Wolf, K. D. (2006). Paradoxien der Neuen Staatsräson. Die Internationalisierung der Bildungspolitik in der EU und der OECD. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 13(2), 145–176 (in German).

  33. OECD. (2011). Towards an OECD Skills Strategy. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/27/47769000.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2011.

  34. Östh, J., Andersson, E., & Malmberg, B. (2010). School choice and increasing performance difference: A counterfactual approach. Stockholm Research Reports in Demography 2010:11. http://www.suda.su.se/SRRD/SRRD_2010_11.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2011.

  35. Peters, M. A. (2003). Classical political economy and the role of Universities in the New Knowledge Economy. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1(2), 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peters, M. A. (2005). The new prudentialism in education: Actuarial rationality and the entrepreneurial self. Educational Theory, 22(2), 122–137.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pirrie, A. (2001). Evidence-based practice in education: The best medicine? British Journal of Educational Studies, 49(2), 124–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Popkewitz, T. S. (2004). Is the National Research Council committee’s report on scientific research in education scientific? On trusting the manifesto. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 62–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sarfatti Larson, M. (1977). The rise of professionalism. A sociological analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Söderström, M., & Uusitalo, R. (2005). School choice and segregation: Evidence from an admission reform, IFAU Working paper. Uppsala: Institutet för Arbetsmarknadsutvärdering.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ståhle, Y. (2006). Pedagogiken i tiden. Om framväxten av nya undervisningsformer under tidigt 2000-talexemplet Kunskapsskolan. Stockholm: HLS Förlag. (In Swedish with an extensive summary in English). http://www.suforlag.se/UserFiles/1/File/epubl/Stahle_Pedagogiken_avh.pdf . Accessed June 2, 2011.

  43. Sundell, K., & Stensson, E. (2010). Effektutvärderingar i doktorsavhandlingar (Effect evaluation in doctoral theses). Stockholm: The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (In Swedish) http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/17970/2010-3-24.pdf Accessed May 2, 2010.

  44. Swedish National Agency of Education. (2010). What influences educational achievement in the Swedish compulsory comprehensive school? How can changes in learning outcomes be explained? Stockholm: Skolverket.

  45. Trumberg, A. (2011). Den delade skolan. Segregationsprocesser i det svenska skolsystemet [The divided school. Segregation processes in the Swedish education system]. Örebro Studies in Human Geography 6. Örebro: Örebro Universitet (in Swedish with an extensive summary in English).

  46. U.S. Congress. (2002). Education Science Reform Act of 2002. H. R. 38018. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rschstat/leg/PL107-279.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2010.

  47. Whitty, G. (2010). Revisiting School Knowledge: Some sociological perspectives on new school curricula. European Journal of Education, 45 (1), 28–45.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Yates, L., & Collins, C. (2010). The absence of knowledge in Australian curriculum reforms. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in. From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisbeth Lundahl.

Additional information

The article is based upon an invited keynote speech to the First International Theorising Education Conference, University of Stirling, June 2010.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lundahl, L. Educational Theory in an Era of Knowledge Capitalism. Stud Philos Educ 31, 215–226 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-012-9304-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Knowledge capitalism
  • Educational theory
  • Educational phenomena
  • Evidence-based