To Örebro University

This thesis examines the role of present futures in global education policy discourse by analysing how they shape and are used to legitimise programmatic ideas for education. The thesis acknowledges present futures as action-guiding factors and arguments inspired by the sociology of expectations and sociological fictionalism.

UNESCO's initiative Futures of Education: Learning to Become serves as the empirical entry point into the global education governing arena. This study comprises material published from the initiative's launch in 2019 up to the initiative's final report, published in 2021. The report was compiled by the International Commission on the Futures of Education, which UNESCO invited to revise educational futures in exchange with experts and the public. Moreover, the Faure report (1972) and the Delors report (1996), which are similar flagship reports commissioned by UNESCO, are considered for an appropriate contextualisation of the subject matter. The analysis draws on the discourse historical approach (DHA) and therefore integrates thoroughly sociopolitical and historical context for the analysis.

This thesis shows how futures were imagined and portrayed as elusive and disruptive in the Futures of Education initiative and how that meant that education needed to be flexible, adaptable, and plural. However, to understand the present futures and programmatic ideas this thesis unearthed, it is essential to consider the peculiarity of the global education governing arena and UNESCO's history of struggle to stay relevant. After all, the initiative also functioned as an opportunity or strategy to (re)produce and legitimise the role of UNESCO as a humanistic actor and brand in the global education governing arena while maintaining to be relevant to diverse stakeholders and ideologies.

In the 2020s, there are both societal and academic reasons to reflect on the field of history of education. In this article, we focus on the issue of the social, which remains central to the field as we acknowledge that society shapes education and education shapes society. By exploring the social on theoretical, methodological and broader societal levels, we provide suggestions for how we can rethink the field of educational history in the future. In line with a postmodern emphasis on particularity and complexity, we do not present any simple or general answers. We do not promote a return to the social history accounts of the post-war era and its emphasis on social class, economic development and the state. Instead, we encourage efforts to rethink the terms social and society on the basis of both classic social history accounts and the lessons learned from new cultural history of education. What would a new social history of education look like in the twenty-first century, and how can we write updated histories on education and society today?

Building on the approach that knowledge is socially constructed, this study aims to deepen the understanding of knowledge production processes by adapting the concept of a laboratory on an historical example of editorial collaboration. We use the editorial process of The International Encyclopedia of Education (IEE) (1985) as an example. Considering knowledge as situated in contrast to the illusion of objectivity, the paper pursues identifying a perspective on the editing process that is located in its periphery. Rooted in constructivist assumptions of Science and Technology Studies (STS) andFeminist Standpoint Theory (FST), the paper builds on the potential of understanding the social construction of knowledge by taking marginalised perspectives into account. Including the concept of gendered division of labour, the approach offers a deeper understanding of the editorial process, beyond the presented picture of relevant actors and actions. The source material consists of correspondence concerning the editorial process of the encyclopaedia, which is filed in the archive of Torsten Husen. There, we encountered the publisher's managing editor Barbara Barrett, the only woman in the editorial board of the IEE's first edition. By analysing almost 4000 pages of correspondence by coding according to qualitative content analysis it is possible to show that the kind of work that Barrett performed was much more central than presented. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of knowledge production processes and of related marginalisation of certain groups in the past. Hereby, it offers a departure point for reflecting upon present practices.

In his influential book A social history of knowledge Peter Burke writes: “Intellectuals are masters of some kinds of knowledge, but other fields of expertise or ‘know-how’ are cultivated by such groups as bureaucrats, artisans, peasants, midwives and popular healers.” (Burke 2000: 14). The history of knowledge cannot just be understood from the perspective of successful scholars and great thinkers. This of course also applies to the knowledge of comparative education. To understand the complex process of knowledge production it is vital to include further and especially peripheral perspectives (Haraway 1988: 583f) who might not be visible at first sight.

In Torsten Husén’s - one of the founding ‘fathers’ of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement(IEA) - archive regarding The Encyclopedia of International Education (IEE) we encountered the publisher’s managing editor Barbara Barrett. She is figuratively speaking a midwife - not at random typically a rather female role - in the history of comparative education. Barrett in many different ways helped giving birth to both IEE editions (1984, 1995) and thus contributed to the IEE’s knowledge production. Nevertheless, by not being part of the list of references, which are essential support of knowledge claims in academia (Latour 1987), she seems to be a forgotten female knowledge worker in the field of comparative education. Theoretically based on the ‘practice turn’ within the sociology of knowledge (Camic, Gross & Lamont 2011) this paper aims to give identity to knowledge workers like Barrett, who might be mentioned in a preface, but are rarely acknowledged further.

The archive offers 3852 pages of correspondence between the editors-in-chief, publisher’s staff like the managing editor, section editors and commissioned authors. Hereby it allows detailed insights in the social process of the IEE production. Not only by numbers - 447 pages of correspondence which are explicitly related to Barrett by the archive label - the fundamental role of the managing editor in the process becomes apparent but also through closer reading. By applying the Qualitative Content Analysis (Schreier 2012) it is possible to show a pattern of Barretts influence and give qualitative insights in the way she was administratively, socially and content-related involved in the knowledge production.

Thus, the study considers historical material with an ethnographic perspective.The origins of the powerful contemporary international research organizations, such as IEA, in education and their increasing influence in the shaping of national and transnational education governance lie in the construction of new research networks, associations and publications in post-war Europe (e.g. Hofstetter & Schneuwly, 2004). Approaches contributing to understanding the history of educational research since then emphasize for example the role of research institutes (and inter­national conferences or international networks in general (Lawn, 2008).Access to the unique archive of Professor Torsten Huséngives the opportunity to reconstruct circumstances and the production process of the IEE as an example of an publication in and cause for interational networks and associations in the second half of the twentieth century. The archive makes it possible toexplore knowledge production in retrospect. By analysing archive material, it is possible to recreate a kind of social science laboratory in retrospective which allows to trace networks between humans and non-humans, and their actions; here it is possible to retrace how they performed the IEE. Therefore, we can speak of ethnography being applied on historical texts (Nimmo 2011).

The study view IEE both as a network and an inscription and focus on Barretts role within it. IEE consists of several hundred individuals in different positions and practices in relation to each other, as well as of material conditions such as funding, typewriters, papers, letters, software, etc. This socio-material network materializes: it generates inscriptions such as headings and articles that follow particular standards. IEE as a network extends and expands across time, space and language – it travels through its members, who meet at conferences and symposia all over the world and correspond from a distance. Finally, the outcome, the encyclopedia itself, becomes part of new networks; it circulates around the world (Schreiwer and Martinez 2004), gathers allies, shapes thoughts and actions, gets quoted, and grows in strength – it even becomes a standard reference work. However, after some years, it becomes obsolete. 

The growth of a network of comparative education required actors and mediators that were able to translate between human and non-human entities from all over the world. Torsten Husén was such an actor, but so was Barbara Barrett, working in the shadows of the researchers. Partially she functioned as an intermediator enabling them to meet and correspond with each other and partially as a mediator, who negotiated, persuaded, forced and also translated between them. Without someone performing these functions in the network of the IEE, the end result would not have been the inscripted, materialized encyclopedia.

Bibliography

Burke, P. (2000):  A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Camic, C., Gross, N. & Lamont, M. (eds.) (2011): Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Haraway, D.(1988): Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies,vol.14 1988, No 3, p. 575-599.

Hofstetter, R & Schneuwly, B. (2004), Introduction: Educational Sciences in Dynamic and Hybrid Institutionalization, Paedagogica Historica 40(5/6): 569–589.

Husén, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (eds.) (1985): The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Latour, B. (1987): Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lawn, M. (2008) (ed), An Atlantic Crossing? The Work of the International Examination Inquiry, Its Researchers, Methods and Influence. Oxford: Symposium Books.

Nimmo, R. 2011. “Actor-Network Theory and Methodology: Social Research in a More-Than-Human World.” Methodological Innovations Online 6(3): 108-119.

Schreier, Margrit (2012): Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Encyclopedias often claim to be collections of facts. Facts are usually perceived as naturally given or 'unconstructed by anyone' (Latour & Woolgar 1979/1986). But producing an encyclopaedia is not an independent and objective editorial process. By choosing, which also is socially and institutionally embedded, topics and authors and by structuring i.e. the whole compilation along sections the encyclopaedia is not only formally shaped. By doing so the conditions are put together which influence in various ways the social process of the encyclopaedia’s formation and therefore the social construction of knowledge. The editorial process underlies constant changes and is very much influenced by its editors’ perspective. But in order to maintain the illusion of objectivity facts are presented as given and unbiased, a ‘god trick’ as Haraway (1988: 581) puts it. 

Taking this into account helps to deconstruct the myth of naturally given objectivity and the traditional centrality of the male scientist’s perspective (central critique of feminist theory - overview i.e. in Crasnow et al. 2018). Torsten Husén (1916-2009), one of the two editors-in-chief of The Encyclopedia of International Education (IEE) (1984, 1995) and one of the founding ‘fathers’ of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement(IEA),can be seen as an important influential male perspective of international relevance in the field of education in the 20^thcentury.

In his archive regarding the IEE we encountered Barbara Barrett. As the publisher’s managing editor she plays an important role in the production of both IEE editions. By not being part of the list of references, which are essential support of knowledge claims in academia (Latour 1987), she seems to be a forgotten female knowledge worker in the field of comparative education.  Theoretically based on the ‘practice turn’ within the sociology of knowledge (Camic, Gross & Lamont 2011) this paper aims - by using the IEE as an example - on the one hand to show how facts are socially constructed. On the other hand it attempts to emphasize the role of female knowledge workers like Barrett in the network of knowledge producers, who might be mentioned in a preface, but are rarely acknowledged further.

The archive offers 3852 pages of correspondence between the editors-in-chief, the publisher’s staff like the managing editor, section editors and commissioned authors. Hereby it allows detailed insights in the social process of the IEE production. Not only by numbers - 447 pages of correspondence which are explicitly related to Barbara Barrett by the archive label - the fundamental role of the managing editor in the process becomes apparent but also through closer reading. By applying the Qualitative Content Analysis (Schreier 2012, 2014) it is possible to show a pattern of Barrett’s influence and give qualitative insights in the way she was administratively, socially and content-related involved in knowledge production. We present a picture of her role throughout the editing and publication process to identify a rather hidden kind of knowledge work as a fundamental part of the joint effort to collect, produce and share knowledge.

Bibliography

Camic, C., Gross, N. & Lamont, M. (eds.) (2011): Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Crasnow, S., Wylie, A., Bauchspies, W. K. & Potter, E. (2018): Feminist Perspectives on Science. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2018 Edition. Forthcoming URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/feminist-science/>. 

Haraway, D.(1988): Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies,vol.14 1988, No 3, p. 575-599.

Husén, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (eds.) (1985): The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Husén, T. & Postlethwaite, T. N. (eds.) (1994): The International Encyclopedia of Education (2^nded.) Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979/1986): Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Latour, B. (1987): Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schreier, Margrit (2012): Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Schreier, Margrit (2014): Varianten qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse. Ein Wegweiser im Dickicht der Bgrifflichkeiten. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 15, No 1, Art. 18, January 2014. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewFile/2043/3636[22-01-2018]