Embedding Education Research in the European Economic Imaginary?

  • Marcelo Parreira do Amaral


This chapter discusses the role and position of education research in the current policy agenda of the European Union (EU), in particular in the Horizon 2020 research framework program. In discussing this topic, the intention is to reflect upon the impact dominant views have in knowledge generation activities, in particular in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (SSH). The contribution looks into the different perceptions of the role of SSH research and roles assigned to SSH research in European research policy, highlighting the tensions involved. It also deliberates on the policy drivers for embedding SSH research in the EU’s research agendas. The discussion illustrates the tensions for education research by referring to a concrete example before the main elements of the dominant knowledge regime are discussed and questions as to changes in epistemic governance ensuing from the ‘embedding’ of education research in this regime of knowledge production are asked. The chapter concludes with outlining some concerns about the (potential) implications and risks for education research as a field when it is ‘fully integrated’ in this economic imaginary.


  1. Bleiklie, I. & Henkel, M. (2005). Governing Knowledge. A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education. Dordrecht et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) (Ed.). (2008). Wissen für Handeln – Strategien für eine evidenzbasierte Bildungspolitik. Bonn/Berlin: BMBF.Google Scholar
  3. Crompton, H. (2007). Mode 2 Knowledge Production: Evidence from Orphan Drug Networks. Science and Public Policy, 34/3, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. EC. (2011). Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union. SEC(2010) 1161. Online at: Retrieved 18 Apr 2018.
  5. EC. (2013). Innovation Union – A Pocket Guide on a Europe 2020 Initiative. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  6. EC. (2017). Topics for Social Sciences and Humanities. Research and Innovation. Participant Portal. Online at:,topics=flags/s/SSH/1/1&+callStatus/asc. Retrieved 18 Apr 2018.
  7. EU Parliament. (2000). Presidency Conclusions. Lisbon European Council, 23–24 March 2000. Online at: Retrieved 18 Apr 2018.
  8. Fenwick, T., Mangez, E. & Ozga, J. (2014). Governing Knowledge: Comparison, Knowledge-based Technologies and Expertise in the Regulation of Education (World Yearbook of Education 2014). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings by Michel Foucault, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  10. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  11. Godin, B. (2006). The Knowledge-based Economy: Conceptual Framework or Buzzword. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gogolin, I., Baumert, J., & Scheunpflug, A. (Eds.). (2011). Transforming Education. Large-scale Reform Projects in Education Systems and their Effects. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  13. Gruber, K.-H. (2006). The German ‘PISA-Shock’: Some Aspects of the Extraordinary Impact of the OECD’s PISA Study on the German Education System. In H. Ertl (Ed.), Cross-National Attraction in Education: Accounts from England and Germany (pp. 195–206). Oxford: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  14. Jessop, B. (2008). A Cultural Political Economy of Competitiveness and its Implications for Higher Education. In B. Jessop, N. Fairclough, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Education and the Knowledge-based Economy in Europe (pp. 11–39). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Knightley, P. (1975). The First Casualty. From the Crimea to Vietnam: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist, and Myth Maker. New York/London: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.Google Scholar
  16. Nordmann, A., Radder, H., & Schiemann, G. (Eds.). (2014). Strukturwandel der Wissenschaft. Positionen zum Epochenbruch. Weilerswist: Vellbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  17. Normand, R. (2016). The Changing Epistemic Governance of European Education. The Fabrication of the Homo Economicus Europeanus. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Popkewitz, T. S. (1997). A Changing Terrain of Knowledge and Power: A Social Epistemology of Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 26(9), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Radtke, F.-O. (2012). Tatsachen und Werte. Erziehungswissenschaft zwischen Expertise und Kritik. Vierteljahreschrift für wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 88(2), 290–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Radtke, F.-O. (2015). Methodologischer Ökonomismus. Organische Experten im Erziehungssystem. Erziehungswissenschaft, 26(50), 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Radtke, F.-O. (2016). Konditionierte Strukturverbesserung. Umbau und Neuformierung der deutschen Erziehungswissenschaft flankiert von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unter Anleitung der OECD verwirklicht von der Kultusministerkonferenz. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 62(5), 707–731.Google Scholar
  23. Tröhler, D. (2014). Tradition oder Zukunft? 50 Jahre Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft aus bildungshistorischer Sicht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(1), 9–31.Google Scholar
  24. van den Hove, S., McGlade, J., Mottet, P., & Depledge, M. H. (2012). The Innovation Union: A Perfect Means to Confused Ends? Environmental Science and Policy, 16(1), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vilnius Declaration (2013). Vilnius Declaration – Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities. Online at: Retrieved 18 Apr 2018.
  26. Weber, M. (1946 [1922]). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (pp. 129–156), translated and edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Wehling, P. (2007). Wissensregime. In R. Schützeichel (Ed.), Handbuch Wissenssoziologie und Wissensforschung (pp. 704–712). UVK: Konstanz.Google Scholar
  28. Weiler, H. N. (2003). Bildungsforschung und Bildungsreform — Von den Defiziten der deutschen Erziehungswissenschaft. In I. Gogolin & R. Tippelt (Eds.), Innovation durch Bildung. Schriften der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft (DGfE) (pp. 181–203). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  29. Weingart, P. (1997). From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old Wine in New Bottles? Social Science Information, 36/4, 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weingart, P., Carrier, M., & Krohn, W. (2007). Nachrichten aus der Wissensgesellschaft. Analysen zur Veränderung der Wissenschaft. Weilerswist: Vellbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  31. Zapp, M., Marques, M., & Powell, J. J.W. with Contributions by Biesta, G., & Helgetun, J. B. (2018). European Educational Research (Re)Constructed. Institutional Change in Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, and the European Union. Bristol: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  32. Zapp, M., & Powell, J. (2016). How to Construct an Organizational Field: Empirical Educational Research in Germany, 1995–2015. European Educational Research Journal, 15, 537–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zapp, M., & Powell, J. (2017). Moving Towards Mode 2? Evidence-based Policy-making and the Changing Conditions for Educational Research in Germany. Science and Public Policy, scw091, 1–11. Scholar
  34. Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What it is, and What it Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EducationUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations