In this paper, we will look at three different media events in Sweden, in which educational researchers shared their results and conclusions on 1) the PISA assessments, 2) the Swedish grading system, 3) the teacher training program. In these three occasions a surprisingly animated discussion took part between researchers, politicians, teachers and the public opinion. In many cases the educational researchers where accused of having it wrong and facts put forward even got ridiculed. Of course, it is a sign of a sound and vital society not just to uncritically accept facts and information produced by the research community, but when anecdotic evidence and common sense opinions seemingly are given the same weight in the public debate the legitimacy of research is at risk.
In our paper, we will conduct a media analysis based on three traditional newspapers publication and online comments to our three media events. We will also investigate 20 of the most influential educational blogs for the same events. Departing from the notion of Niclas Luhmann that Mass media do not just depict social reality, but in a real sense produce it: ‘What we know about the world we live in we know through mass media’ (Luhmann 2009, p. 9) we will conduct an actor network theory analysis in which the techniques of linking and liking are treated as important for the production of the world as the facts and anecdotes (cf Latour 1987). The networks that are produced are considered not “as metaphors, but as socio-material performances that enact reality” (Fenwick 2010).
We will firstly investigate if research comments on PISA and national assessments are discussed in a primarily positive way, a primarily negative (or seemingly falsifying) way or in a neutral or ambivalent way (see further Waldow 2017). Secondly, we will look at how these references are interlinked in the social media web. The paper will illustrate how in a post truth society scientific facts are re-negotiated in a manner in which ordinary techniques of producing valid knowledge (theory, research method, analysis, claims) doesn’t count in what makes valid knowledge in the eyes of the public.