Enlightenment, Creativity and Education

CAIE 19 / CESE 02

The Comparative Education Society in Europe (CESE) is an international non-

profit making association of scientific and educational character. CESE was
founded in 1961 in London and is a founding society of the World Council of
Comparative Education Societies (WCCES).

CESE has traditionally promoted a space for dialogue amongst scholars, specialists
and young researchers from the field of education and other disciplines. More
specifically, its purpose is to encourage and promote comparative and international
studies in education by:

• promoting and improving the teaching of comparative education in institutions

of higher learning;
• stimulating research;
• facilitating the publication and distribution of comparative studies in education;
• interesting professors and teachers of other disciplines in the comparative and
• international dimension of their work;
• co-operating with those who in other disciplines attempt to interpret educational
• developments in a broad context;
• organising conferences and meetings;
• collaborating with other Comparative Education Societies across the world in
order to further international action in this field.

Every two years CESE organises an international conference of high scholarly

standards which attracts academics, scholars, practitioners and students from all
parts of Europe and around the world. Throughout its history, CESE has organised
twenty-four such conferences, a special conference for the 25th anniversary of the
Society, a symposium, and two ‘CESE In-Betweens’. In-Betweens are
international symposia organised between the biennial conferences. A web site of
CESE is maintained at http://www.cese-europe.org/

The CESE Series

Series Editor: Miguel A. Pereyra, CESE President

Editorial Board: The CESE Executive Committee
Robert Cowen (Institute of Education, University of London)
Elisabeth Buk-Berge (Norwegian Ministry of Education & Research)
Hans-Georg Kotthoff (Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg)
Vlatka Domović (University of Zagreb)
Lennart Wikander (University of Uppsala)
Eleftherios Klerides (European University of Cyprus)
Enlightenment, Creativity and Education
Polities, Politics, Performances

Edited by

Lennart Wikander
Christina Gustafsson
Ulla Riis
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6209-050-7 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6209-051-4 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6209-052-1 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/

Printed on acid-free paper

Photo cover: Student work places in the entrance hall Campus Blåsenhus,
Department of Education, Uppsala University, Sweden
Photo: Uppsala University

All Rights Reserved © 2012 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface vii
Christina Gustafsson, Ulla Riis and Lennart Wikander

Introduction ix
Lennart Wikander

Section I. Comparative Education – The Role of

Knowledge and Educational Research
1. Robustly Researching the Relevant: A Note on Creation
Myths in Comparative Education 3
Robert Cowen

2. Comparative Education in Late Modernity:

Tensions between Accelerating the Disenchantment of the
World and Opening Pedagogical Spaces of Possibility 27
S. Karin Amos

3. Existential Education and the Quest for a New Humanism:How to

Create Disturbances and Deeper Thinking in Schools and Universities? 45
Inga Bostad

4. Education and the Welfare Society: The Swedish Case 61

Ulf P. Lundgren

Section II. Globalisation and New Trends

5. Pedagogical and Epistemological Paradigms in the
University in the Ara of Globalisation 81
María José García Ruiz

6. The Decline of Europe and its Impact 103

David Coulby

7. Governance Matters? Changing Systems of

School Governance in Europe: Empirical Effects and
Challenges for School Development 113
Hans-Georg Kotthoff and Katharina Maag Merki

8. Global Evaluation and Quality Assurance Policy

Meet Local Education Context: A Swedish Case Narrative 133
Christina Segerholm

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section III: New Knowledge – Identities – Policies

9. Managerialism and Entrepreneurialism in Universities:
Is there Space for Creativity? 149
Aljona Sandgren

10. The Assessment of Competencies Acquired by

Returnees from Individual Student Exchanges:
European Key Competencies and the Italian School 171
Carla Roverselli and Anselmo R. Paolone

11. Comparing Identities in Dissimilar Spaces and Times:

Hybridity, Border Crossing, Indeterminacies, Pluralism 193
Eleftherios Klerides

12. Negotiating Identities in School Settings: “Latinos” in

Madrid and Buenos Aires 209
Jason Beech and Ana Bravo-Moreno

About the Authors 231

vi
CHRISTINA GUSTAFSSON, ULLA RIIS AND LENNART WIKANDER

PREFACE

This volume presents a selection of paper contributions from the 24th Conference
of the Comparative Education Society in Europe (CESE), August 16–19, 2010 at
Uppsala University, Sweden. The theme of the conference was “Enlightenment,
Creativity and Education: Polities, Politics, Performances” which is also the title of
this book. However, the subsections of the book have been reformulated according
to the selection of papers, which at the same time, illustrates the various
perspectives and ideas presented at the conference.
The themes for the working groups were:
1. Enlightenment and Wisdom
2. Social Models and Economies
3. Identities and Polities
4. Creativities and Competences
5. Education and Educational Governance
6. Teachers and Teacher Education
7. The New Scholars’ Working Group
At the conference, 120 delegates from 29 countries from all parts of the world were
present. In total, 100 papers were presented in 35 working sessions. Nine of these
papers have been selected for the present volume. Also included in this book are
three keynote lectures. This anthology, in evident ways, brings together
contributions which have been elaborated on and written from different intellectual
traditions and approaches.
We express our gratitude to those whose generous participation made it possible
for the 24th CESE Conference to be organised in Uppsala. First of all, Miguel
Pereyra, President of CESE, and Robert Cowen, Past President of CESE have
always been willing to help, and they have been truly stimulating throughout the
process of organising the conference, and in finalising this publication.
Secondly, we extend our thanks to the coordinators of the working groups who
efficiently coordinated the core work of the conference and contributed in the
selection of the texts included in this book: Elisabeth Buk-Berge, Robert Cowen,
Vlatka Domovic, Zlata Godler, Hans-Georg Kotthoff, Donatella Palomba, Yiannis
Roussakis and Thyge Winther-Jensen.
Finally we also would like to express our gratitude to Rosa Lisa Iannone who
has made a very professional and much appreciated proofreading of the draft
manuscripts for this publication and Lena Larson Johannesson who did the very
arduous work of preparing a print-ready copy and print-ready layout for the
publisher, within the rules of SENSE.

vii
C. GUSTAFSSON, U. RIIS AND L. WIKANDER

Economic support for the 24th CESE Conference was granted by The Swedish
Research Council, by The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation, by the Vice
Chancellor of Uppsala University and by the Faculty of Social Sciences, Uppsala
University.
The realisation of the conference would not have been successful without the
committed, varied and continuous work of our colleagues at the Department of
Education at Uppsala University.
To all who contributed to the conference and this anthology, we would like to
extend our sincere gratitude.

Christina Gustafsson Ulla Riis Lennart Wikander

Professor Professor Senior Lecturer

The Uppsala Local Conference Organising Committee; and The Editors.

viii
 LENNART WIKANDER

INTRODUCTION

Today the borders of the national states of Europe are more open to flows of
people and businesses, to ideas and to information, to innovations and to new rules
which frame common action within the EU. These processes are regional, but they
also take place on a world scale. Thus, a conventional policy question (on which a
great deal of money and political effort have been spent) has been how ‘Europe’
can adjust to ‘globalisation’. The most general form of the question
(of ‘adjustment’) is, “What can be done to strengthen European competitiveness in
the future and create a stable economy within the European community?” The task
of transformation, in an official voice, dates back at least to the European Council
Meeting in Lisbon in the year 2000. Since then a great deal of reform effort has
had political visibility – notably, the Bologna process. Educational research of the
PISA-sort has also attracted political attention, mobilised Ministries of Education
to discuss reform, and caused a flurry of anxiety in the mass media of several
countries.
In other words, the classic question in comparative education, “How far may we
learn anything of practical value from the study of foreign systems of education?”
has retained – mutatis mutandis – some of its awesome attraction and its implicit
assumption about our social relevance in the contemporary period: we, as social
scientists, could be useful.
However, as members of universities, we also have other duties; notably, to
think and teach, research and write. What should we teach our students and what
should we be thinking about? We could of course – and we should of course –
teach about ‘globalisation’ and ‘policy reform’ and TIMSS and PISA: we can tell
the stories of contemporary educational reform shaped by the urgent anxieties of
contemporary public and political understandings of economic globalisation and
the educational demands of knowledge economies. The rhetoric and policies of
‘the knowledge economy’ apparently point us forward to a confidently defined
future in which we know the kind of information and creativities and applied
knowledge needed for economic success.
Thus – by extension – the challenge to us as comparative educationists is to
invent such a future and write the educational small print, because the political and
professional demands for reform are urgent in schools and colleges and
universities. However, the stark simplicities of such a constrained role cause at
least a frisson of anxiety. Are we merely the educational transcribers, the
educational clerks, of agendas written by ‘globalisation’? Hence, instead of
accepting the agenda and rushing into writing the small educational print of a pre-
specified, large-lettered, future writ of economic globalisation, the theme of the

ix
L. WIKANDER

conference stayed open, in order to permit for some broad questions and
questionings.
The theme of the conference was chosen so as to try and retain a sense of the
non-determined, of the sociologically complex, and of the historically puzzling,
through its title: “Enlightenment, Creativity, and Education: Polities, Politics,
Performances”. This title welcomes questions such as, “What are the contemporary
and emergent nature of polities?”; “What are the politics of the future – and who
says so?”; “Against the agenda of competences and performativities, what in our
vision of the future should be the performances we expect in schools and
universities and teacher education systems?”; “What are the delicate or forceful
patterns of educational governance and supervision and assessment which will
encourage those performances?”; “What – in a comparative perspective – are the
historical forces and sociological and economic structures which are influencing
our ideas and assumptions about identity and wisdom and the future of polities and
economies?” Such questions are inherently complex; difficult to answer. Some
possible answers and most of the contributions in this publication were
conceptualised– as is the CESE tradition – within a number of seminars; in
the 24th CESE Conference in Uppsala, this took place in the Working Groups.
Their rubrics and themes were:
WG 1. Enlightenment and Wisdom
Enlightenments: Swedish, Scottish and others; the State and Church and
secularisation; Bildung, Ausbildung, formation/formaciόn; Socrates, Confucius
and the Buddha as paradigms, past – and – present; doxa, episteme, sophia;
information, numbers, evidence; new technologies and wisdom and digital
Bildung; universities, think-tanks, research institutes and innovation;
scientific/technological development and new dependencies; the state and the
control of information and knowledge; and ‘wisdom?’.
WG 2. Social Models and Economies
The collapse of the neo-liberal state; welfare states, market states,
developmental states, theocratic states; issues of social capital, social cohesion,
harmony and competition; inclusion and exclusion; public and private
education; ideologies of sustainability, of lifelong learning, of youth and age, of
equity, and of skill formation.
WG 3. Identities and Polities
Identities: changing and stable, muddled and multiple, internalised, mobile,
internationalised, schooled, and gendered identities; Differenzlinien; national
and global citizenship; social cohesion; religion, family and state; intercultural
education and intercultural understandings; political education.
WG 4. Creativities and Competences
The politics of originality: a contradiction in terms?; the concept of competent
knowledge – and competent wisdom?; imagination and the schooling system;
the music of the mind and rules of creative order and universities; theoreticians
of creativity; humanities and sciences and skills and competences; skill

x
 INTRODUCTION

formation and the labour market: creative attitudes and critical values, or
compliance?; technical vocational education, including techne and art;
competences of political, economic and social identity and notions of the ‘good
society’.
WG 5. Education and Educational Governance
Educational autonomy and governance; ideologies of surveillance, assessment,
knowledge transfer; PISA, TIMSS and ‘governance by numbers’; actors and
systems; evaluation, quality assurance and development; leadership and
management; school autonomy, choice, diversity and competitiveness;
institutional, sub-national, national, regional, international governance and
curriculum and school structures.
WG 6. Teachers and Teacher Education
New professionalism?; standards and competences and quality assurance;
research on, and in, teacher education; ideologies of the teacher as a researcher
and as a reflective practitioner; teacher education reform in crisis; status, the
teaching profession, universities and the state; Socrates, Confucius and the
Buddha as paradigms; teacher training and teacher education; teacher identity;
teacher mobility; the Bologna process; national/European/international models;
teacher autonomy; lifelong learning.
WG 7. The New Scholars’ Working Group
In this group, new scholars were invited to explore, in a seminar format, their
work-in-progress. The New Scholars’ Group was different from the other
working groups and was not thematically framed.
In this book, Working Group themes have been restructured into three sections:
Section I: Comparative Education – The Role of Knowledge and Educational
Research
Section II: Globalisation and New Trends
Section III: New Knowledge – Identities – Policies
In the first section, “Comparative Education – The Role of Knowledge and
Educational Research”, some of the main questions of the conference are covered;
e.g. a discussion of the role of comparative education and the role of scientists in
the field. This theme’s reach is from a discussion of the role of educational science
to the role played by education in new societies. The theme links to the keynote
lectures by S. Karin Amos, Inga Bostad and Ulf P. Lundgrenand a contribution
by Robert Cowen.
In Section II, “Globalisation and New Trends”, the authors illustrate the
consequences of globalisation and challenges for the concept of quality. The
contributors are María José García Ruiz, David Coulby, Hans-Georg Kotthoff and
Katharina Maag Merki and Christina Segerholm.
In the final Section III, “New Knowledge – Identities – Policies”, the relations
between new knowledge, identities and the consequences of new policies are

xi
L. WIKANDER

examined. The contributors are Aljona Sandgren, Carla Roverselli and Anselmo R.
Paolone, Eleftherios Klerides and Jason Beech and Ana Bravo-Moreno.
The lines and borders between the sections are not clean-cut. There are overlaps
between the sections, which in themselves illustrate the complexity of the object of
study. The Editors have deliberately chosen to keep that complexity visible.

Lennart Wikander
Department of Education
Uppsala University

xii
 SECTION I

COMPARATIVE EDUCATION
The Role of Knowledge and Educational Research
 ROBERT COWEN

1. ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

A Note on Creation Myths in Comparative Education

INTRODUCTION

I had initially intended, with the themes of the conference title in mind, to offer
some reflections on the remarkable biographies of Joseph Lauwerys and George
Bereday. Thereafter, stimulated by the questions of Marianne Larsen (2010a,
pp. 179–193)1 about the future of academic comparative education,2 this chapter
would have reviewed some of our earlier ‘performances’ in academic comparative
education.
The core task would have been to clear away the dulling clichés in ancient
articles (and in some recent writing) that academic comparative education is
defined by its method; that academic comparative education ‘compares’
i.e. juxtaposes similarities and differences in education in two societies; and that
the crucial problem in academic comparative education is to understand ‘context’.
I had intended to finish with two cheering thoughts: academic comparative
education has a permanent agenda – its ‘unit ideas’ (Cowen, 2009a) and, second,
that academic comparative education is currently very creative as it explores new
moments of enlightenment (Cowen & Kazamias, 2009, pp. 961–1296; Larsen,
2010b).
Unfortunately (as is the way of these things) the more I thought, the more
worried I became. Yes, we know our intellectual lineages; we possess intellectual
perspectives; and we have an iconography (Brickman, 1960, 1966, 1988; Cowen,
2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Epstein, 2008; Fraser, 1964; Fraser & Brickman, 1968;
Halls, 1990; Hausmann, 1967; Higginson, 1979; Kazamias, 2001, 2009; Ninnes,
2008; Paulston, 1994, 2000; Phillips, 2006). It would indeed be possible to
murmur, elegantly, about enlightenment and creativity and ourselves.
However, what if our identity and our past and our future are made ambiguous
and problematic not by the absence of historical knowledge about ourselves but by
our refusal to notice that comparative education, in some of its forms, is politics
and, in all of its forms, is embedded in a range of politics?
For example, we are probably too silent about the ways in which favoured
modes of academic ‘performance’ in comparative education are constrained by
individual (and institutional) power. For example, comparative education becomes
politics when, partly through historical memories about what we used to say we
wished to do, we leave unchallenged the implication that we should and could

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 3–26.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
R. COWEN

provide a science of effective and efficient schools, or could construct a successful

repertoire of techniques for the creation of world class universities, or can offer a
sure and neutral way to develop ‘the Third World’. For example, we insist on
failing to notice that comparative education was political in England or the USA
between 1945 and 1965. That is, academic comparative education was written
within gradualist notions of social amelioration and the expansion of education at
secondary and tertiary levels. There was a political consensus about the axiomatic
goodness of democratic liberal societies. The spat between George Bereday and
Edmund King in the journals (about race and class) suddenly revealed the almost
invisible political contextualisation of comparative education in this period, with
its loud silence about historically-based class conflict and deeply rooted structures
of racial discrimination. In contrast, comparative education is currently extremely
visible (and vulnerable) as a political position when we emphasise that we, as
social technicians, can close gaps between low and high levels of ‘development’.
The more I thought about such themes, and the relationship between
information and understanding, concepts of professional training and the social
role of ‘science’ currently, as well as our conference themes of enlightenment,
creativity, polities, politics and performances, the more anxious I became. How is
academic comparative education affected by political contexts: what are some of
the routine, almost invisible, constraints on our knowledge, our aspirations, and our
intellectual horizons? In what senses are those taken-for-granted horizons limited
by political valuations of knowledge: valuations which we work within, rather than
think about?
I am not, here, hastening back to the comforts of familiar territory: the purposes
and the uses (and abuses) of comparative education as these have been proposed by
George Bereday (1964), Brian Holmes (1986), Edmund King (1965, 1968), Harold
Noah (1974) or Martin Carnoy (2006). Nor do I wish to review the ‘statements of
purpose’ made in the constitutions of the major professional societies of
Comparative Education (or Comparative-and-International Education). Even the
excellent and recent rebalancings of what comparative education is, has been, and
should be (Epstein, 2008; Kazamias, 2009; Mitter, 2009; Ninnes, 2008; Ninnes &
Burnett, 2003; Ninnes & Mehta, 2004; Rust, Johnstone & Allaf, 2009; Steiner-
Khamsi, 2009), are left unexplored. This is because my theme is not, primarily, the
politics of the social uses of ‘comparative knowledge’ after it has been created.
Instead, I wish to puzzle about the politics of the creation of academic
comparative education knowledge. What constrains the genesis of academic
comparative education knowledge: not least, the political messages at the
intersections of ‘social structures, historical forces, and biographies of individuals’3
which begin to shape competence and creativity in comparative education?
Unfortunately – and granted that there are ways to think about such things (Collins,
1998; Friedrichs, 1970) – the comparative history and comparative sociology of
the multiple forms of comparative education have yet to be written, though the new
work of Maria Manzon (2011) is excellent and will be of major value for future
rethinking.
At best, then, what is offered here will be illustrative; almost literally so. The
strategy will be to assemble a collage. The technique of assembly will be to have

4
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

one central pictorial narrative and then add two smaller motifs of different moods,
colours, and textures. The juxtapositions are awkward – but they are used in the
conclusion to make what is obvious less obvious. The main painting, whose theme
is sharply lit and centred, concentrates on structural change and illustrates
the ‘programming of quality’. (In its visual form, it is a mobile mosaic of the
glittering and moving shapes of English universities.) Within the collage, one
small stuck-on photograph offers glimpses of time-past: the brilliant early scholars
moving on the field of comparative and the subsequent perils of our conventional
iconography. Time-present and its promises are a sharp arc across the painting,
etched by career trajectories. Time-future is the conclusion, a darkly illuminated
formal framing of the collage whose formal title is “Enlightenment 2010”.
The meanings of the title blur in translation but the pictures as a whole suggest
the need for some rethinking of the social structuring of competence (Illeris, 2009)
and creativity (Larsen, 2010a) within our own field of study, academic
comparative education.

THE PROGRAMMING OF QUALITY

Robust and Relevant

In the last decade or so, insistence by British politicians that university academics
must do ‘robust and relevant research’ has become normalised, in the sense that the
phrasing is very often repeated as a specific injunction within a broader reform
agenda for the universities (Cowen, 1996, 2000). A priori, the demand by
democratically elected politicians for research that addresses difficult areas of
decision-making in contemporary life seems sensible. What should we do about
climate change; the complexities of health care; nuclear power; congested cities?
In each case, it seems reasonable to ask what is the scientific evidence about the
problem and what, based on scientific research, are the viable value-for-money
solutions to the problem.
Universities do scientific research. Universities in the UK need a lot of public
money. Therefore, they should meet their social responsibilities. These – within a
broad thesis offered by all of the main political parties about the demands of
‘globalisation’ – include the need to prepare the UK to compete in a world
economic market. Thus, universities are now seen as more central to the nation’s
economic survival and future than at any other time since the creation of new
universities in the industrial cities of the north in the 19th century (Sanderson,
1972, 1999). It is all a matter of commonsense; is it not? Contextualised in this
fashion, ‘robust and relevant research’ is merely a memorable alliterative phrase,
useful as a sound-bite for rapid communication with the media.
However, the phrase is rather more than that: it signifies a shift in the political
and economic position of the university in England. The shift is large and
historically important: academics now live within a changed model of university
governance in the UK (King, 2007). The discursive demands associated with this
new model of university governance emphasise, in academic work, skills and
competences and innovation within a framework of ‘quality control’.4

5
R. COWEN

Quality Control and its Institutionalisation

The new systems which define the accountability of universities to the state in the
United Kingdom (with variations between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland) cut to the core of our academic work because the new concepts of what
counts as ‘quality’, in teaching and learning systems and in scholarly production,
have become working practices. In university courses, creativities and skills-and-
competences must be specified as part of the aims and objectives of the course.
Doing a doctorate has been simplified: there are a series of steps, such as short
training courses in research skills and academic writing, thesis-proposal procedures,
mandated tutorials once a fortnight, and formal annual reviews which facilitate and
organise completion within a tight timeframe (Leonard, 2001). Similarly, the
scholarly productivity of academics is regulated. Internally it is planned, guided
through in-house training courses, and double-checked by a range of internal
assessment systems before it is officially reported to an external national ‘quality-
control’ agency. In other words, teaching-and-learning, forms of advanced training
such as the doctorate, and academic productivity are now managed and measured
(Becker, 2004; Cowen, 2000; Deem, Hillyard & Reed, 2007).
The surveillance system for those tasks has gradually become carefully
organised. Externally, agencies are in place to ensure delivery of outputs from the
university system. For example, the Quality Assurance Agency5 defines and
checks teaching standards in higher education, including standards in master’s
level teaching. The Higher Education Funding Council (England) (HEFC(E))6 – or
Scotland, as the case may be – defines what counts as good research and ranks it.
This surveillance system has a peer-review element. Inside universities, there are
now quality assurance and enhancement committees, and Deans. They work to
ensure that internal quality assurance systems are ‘transparent’, ‘fit for purpose’,
able to ‘drill down’, ‘going forward’ (etc.).
The managerialist vocabulary should not be permitted to distract attention from
the sociological process it labels: institutionally, the structures of control import
into the university externally-mandated rules of quality. Academics less and less
define and judge quality; more and more, they manage its organisation and
delivery, and then make judgments on criteria of quality defined by external
evaluation agencies. Academics – accustomed to governance by an oligarchy of
professors legitimated by cultural invocations of collegiality, academic freedom,
and ancestral memories of the Humboldtian University – are now confronted by
written, quasi-contractual, rules of performance (Cowen, 2000; Hoecht, 2006). In-
house and nationally, there are detailed definitions of role-competence for
academics, definitions of good learning-and-teaching, and clear definitions of
correct forms of research ‘output’. Externally, phrases such as ‘quality profiles’
and ‘enhancing excellence’ can be found on the websites of the Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE)7 and the HEFC(E).
These are the discursive and institutional instruments of a shift in the politics of
knowledge creation and knowledge transmission in England.
National agencies express ‘official’ expectations for knowledge creation and
transmission rules in the universities. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and

6
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

the HEFC(E) indicate how successful performance will be judged and rewarded
and poor performance punished. Standardised criteria are published and used to
judge ‘good knowledge’, the latest addition being the necessity for academics to
make claims about the ‘impact’ of their research on the economy and society.8

Reading the Runes

It is important to stress that none of the definitions of good teaching-and-learning
at the master’s level are casual or thoughtless. The account, for example, of what
should be taught as Physics is clear and comprehensible.9 Perhaps the most
obvious change from our traditional assumptions, as academics, about what we are
teaching when we teach ‘our subject’ is the need to list skills, which include what
are called ‘generic skills’. These are specified in all master’s-level course books
that I have seen (including my own) and usually include problem-solving skills;
investigative skills; communication skills; analytical skills; ICT skills; and
personal skills. Illustratively (for Physics) ‘personal skills’ include the ability of
students to work independently, to meet deadlines, and to interact constructively.
Similarly it is important to stress that efforts at national criteria for the
measurement of the quality of academic (research) production are carefully
construed: the basic model of the RAE was clear.10 The current version of the
principles of judgment (offered for the Research Excellence Framework (REF)) is
also serious and strategic:
The REF will be a process of expert review, informed by indicators where
appropriate. Expert sub-panels for each of 36 units of assessment (UOAs)
will carry out the assessment, working under the guidance of four broad main
panels. Institutions will be invited to make submissions to each UOA, to be
assessed in terms of:
The quality of research outputs: This will continue to be the primary factor
in the assessment. The quality of research outputs will be assessed by the
expert panels against international standards of excellence. We expect that
some of the panels will make use of citation information to inform their
review of outputs.
The wider impact of research: The four UK funding bodies have now set
out the features and weighting for this area of assessment, following a
pilot exercise.
The vitality of the research environment: The outcomes of the overall
assessment will be fine-grained enough to identify excellence wherever this may
be found. Panels will produce a sub-profile for each element (outputs, impact
and environment), to be combined into an overall excellence profile. The
profiles will show the proportion of submitted work at each point on a five-point
scale (1* to 4* plus Unclassified11) (Research Excellence Framework, 2012).
The system of surveillance (for ‘research’) is thus reasonably transparent. For other
reasons too, the interpretation of what is happening cannot be a simple assertion

7
R. COWEN

about oppressed academics and the evils of state interference. Universities remain
legally independent entities; they are not part of the British State. There have been
very few occasions in recent years in which ‘academic freedom’ has become a
public issue. The QAA draws its funds from the university sector, and HEFC(E)
(which is indeed working to a framework set by the Secretary of State for
Business, Innovation, and Skills but is not a Department within that sector of the
government) is understood officially as a regulatory agency. The official
perspective (the public presentation of HEFC(E) by HEFC(E) is that it is merely
guaranteeing that the already excellent standards of English universities are
supervised, maintained, and improved in a context in which transparency about
quality and value for the expenditure of public money must be guaranteed.
However, official perspectives – which tend to emphasise the obvious – are not
always the best way to understand social phenomena.
A more complex analysis can be offered.

Deciphering the Runes

First (although the theme was illustrated by details from England), the
phenomenon of ‘quality control’ of the universities is now widespread. Variations
around the mix of universities, quality assurance and enhancement, regimes of
quality surveillance, and discourses about ‘globalisation’ and the knowledge
economy can readily be identified in Europe, in Australia and in New Zealand, and
in parts of East Asia and Latin America (Altbach & Balan, 2007; Besley, 2009;
Besley & Peters, 2009; Epstein, Boden, Deem, Rizvi & Wright, 2008; Harris-
Huemmert, 2010; Peters & Besley, 2007; Rizvi, 2009; Ursin, 2008; Vidovich,
2002). Africa, at the moment, has been construed as a special problem (Naidoo,
2008). Secondly, the theme of the changing relationship between universities and
governments, and changing forms of governance, has been traced in the literature
for over 20 years now, not least through Guy Neave’s original aperçu of ‘the
evaluative state’ (King, 2009; Neave, 1988, 2009; Neave & van Vught, 1991).
Thirdly, the new theme of the international ranking of universities is itself a
sociological framing of universities and national competition within a ‘global’
scenario. These positionalities (on global scales) are becoming a form of self-
surveillance by universities. Analyses of why some systems of universities do well
and how to become a ‘world class university’ are already part of the academic
literature and part of emerging agendas for action (Marginson, 2007a, 2007b;
Marginson & Wende, 2007; Salmi, 2009). Fourthly, evaluation systems are part of
the spread of an ideology about governance and ‘new public management’ and the
knowledge economy. Thus, as an initial summary, it can be suggested that:
− ‘evaluation systems’ for universities and the measurement and reward of their
‘quality’, are now widespread, are spreading further, and are being steadily refined;
− evaluation systems are penetrative: they look at teaching-and learning; and
define good research; and affect – as they are intended to do – the careers of
institutions (and individuals); and

8
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

− the political discourses of individual states emphasise quality and excellence (as
in the phrasing in England: ‘The Research Excellence Framework’; or via
appeals to ‘international standards’ or demands for the creation of ‘world class
universities’).
However, even those points continue to gloss over an obvious contradiction.
Evaluation systems (in their present mode) define how to measure and regulate
competence and it is definitions of competence which permit the classification and
ordering of universities by national agencies.12 Such a policy is rather less
glamorous and politically much trickier to handle than offering an official rhetoric
about the pursuit of quality but it is – depending on how well the elision between
quality and competence is handled – an excellent disciplinary device. It permits
universities to be regulated and ruled: that is, rewarded and punished on the basis
of visible and explicit managerial criteria.
This interpretation is worrying enough (for constraining the range of quality of
academic work in comparative education) but there is a possibility that anxiety
about evaluation systems and their trivialisation of quality is hiding something
even more historically significant.
The core and most worrying point, not least in terms of our field of study, is that
what we are seeing is a contemporary redefinition of knowledge and its social and
political and economic relations.13 It is suggested that we are in a transnational
moment in which international and regional discursive shifts, direct (if nuanced and
non-identical) national political action, and the invention of new kinds of evaluation
institutions and new modes of university governance mean there is a wider and
wider geographical dispersal and an increasing and patterned coherence between:
− new social technologies for knowledge management in a knowledge economy
with, crucially, the university being an institution that is being refocused to
address new social responsibilities;
− systematic redefinitions of innovation and originality by national knowledge
agencies and regional agency discourses;
− a newly sharpened, carefully managed and politically focussed revision of the
relationship of universities to ‘society’ through a range of disciplinary
technologies (e.g. ‘impact’);
− the displacement of the university as the definer of what is ‘important’
originality and the marginalisation of several forms of knowledge in which the
university has specialised for some centuries;
− the routinisation of academic labour in both the production and transmission of
knowledge; and
− an increasingly rapid separation of the production of knowledge from its
transmission.

So, What is Wrong with that?

Obviously, these changes offer opportunities for work in ‘comparative education’.
In times of globalisation, we have become highly ‘relevant knowledge workers’

9
R. COWEN

(Crossley & Watson, 2003, pp. 71–83). We can do robust research, notably
comparative analyses of policy (Lewin & Akyeampong, 2009). We could tell
governments why PISA results are as they are; but also how to improve them. We
have major professional networks which stretch into UNESCO, the OECD, the
World Bank and institutions such as IIEP and regional agencies in Latin America,
the Middle East, and Africa south of the Sahara. We can act on the world through
consultancy and contract research work. Potentially, we are poised to develop as a
major applied social science, in a range of political contexts in which (it might be
claimed) we are much needed actors.
I have considerable reservations about such possible developments if they are
seen within a scenario of optimism about the condition of the field of academic
comparative education. I personally tend to see these ‘opportunities’ as matters
which raise ethical and political questions that we have not answered and are not
answering (Cowen, 1973, 2006).
The alternative interpretative perspective is even less cheerful. The argument
being outlined is that universities are being re-thought and – very creatively and
intensely – managed to become coherent and efficient parts of knowledge
production systems for knowledge societies. Valued knowledge in earlier forms
(Wissenschaften, or knowledge as ‘beauty-and-truth’, or even Mode 2 knowledges)
is being displaced by an ideology which is emphasising the production of research-
with-impact captured within a rhetoric about ‘excellence’. It is being suggested
that such ideologies (institutionalised and linked with surveillance structures) are
starting to define some of our terms of work. New modes of academic productivity
are becoming a replacement for our ‘real’ work (which is here taken to mean a re-
reading of the global and the world of education, within perspectives framed by
complex theoretical and intellectual problématiques that encourage, in Stephen
Carney’s term, ‘defamiliarisation’).
In the new circumstances (even if there are variations in Australia, Belgium,
Canada, Denmark and so on) the crucial problem is that the quotidian ‘politics of
our knowledge’ in academic comparative education are changing rapidly around
three motifs: gate-keeping; accountancy; and the institutional location of creativity.
Narratively, for example, criteria for the judgement of ‘excellence’ – such as
‘impact’, measurement by metrics, the display of relevance, the quality judgements
demanded from national panels working rapidly to judge selections of published
papers, and the constraints on academics to publish only in journals which score
well in the Social Science Citation Index – construct a new and complex sociology
of gate-keeping. This kind of ‘structuring of quality’ is not support for the
identification and reward of the brilliant in academic work but a conservative (and
potentially conserving) form of academic accountancy. That accountancy is
concerned to work out institutional averages – at considerable cost in terms of
diversion of effort. Inside the university, major resources of human energy and
cash-cost are allocated to creating and handling the knowledge management
systems within which the performances of academics are constrained and
measured. Sociologically, of course, this is perfectly understandable. The
astonishing creativity of a John Nash or a Richard Feynman, a Tim Hunt or a
James Lovelock is not something which national measurement systems are

10
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

concerned about. Institutions such as a Cambridge in which Crick and Watson did
part of their thinking, or the University of Cambridge or LSE currently, can survive
considerable bureaucratic interference.
But what about the rest of us (in England and elsewhere)? We probably need to
ask about our own support structures for seriously creative work in academic
comparative education if ‘our’ universities shape-shift with us inside them. What
are our resources? The creation of new digital journals such as that of David
Phillips, the re-vitalisation of old journals (such as European Education) or fresh
epistemic alliances such as those being created in Miguel Pereyra’s CESE ‘In-
Betweens’? Almost certainly, these are steps forward. Maybe our most serious
work should be done in our Societies? Perhaps. However, it is noticeable that while
CIES welcomes and rewards such work – for example, in awarding the George
Bereday Prize to the Comparative Education Review article of Carney (2009) – its
members as a group are not dedicated to work of that kind (Cook, Hite & Epstein,
2004). WCCES has increasingly allied itself with some of the world’s educational
and development agencies and has recently come close to seeing itself as one
(Masemann, Bray & Manzon, 2007). BCIES is also strongly linked, currently, with
the motifs of development and aid and the policy work of the British Government
overseas (Sutherland, Watson & Crossley, 2007).
It is also true that many of our professional Societies are small and long-lived or
small and new. Even if they are probably a more delicate arena for creative
thinking than the mega-Societies of AERA or EERA, perhaps they are not in
themselves a sufficient base from which to do our ‘real’ work – the intellectual
construction of an academic comparative education (which re-thinks our
theoretical apparatus almost as rapidly as the transnational world itself changes).
Therefore, we probably must think again about the terms on which, inside our
universities, we are able, and will be able, to retain some space for thinking
original thoughts.
At first glance, all this seems a long and sad way from the promise and early
excitements of the institutionalisation of academic comparative education about
50 years ago with people like George Bereday and Bill Brickman, and Joseph
Lauwerys and Brian Holmes (and Idenberg and Robinsohn and so on) leading the
field. However, it may also be possible – depending on future research about our
past – to show in detail that things were never that simple.

THE PRICE OF ICONS

One of the problems left to us by our increasingly – but not sufficiently – detailed
history is that we earlier had wanted a brief, stable history with which to legitimise
ourselves. We needed (for obvious reasons) A History of The Regiment; rather
than an historically complex account of our intellectual work and institutional
creation in socio-economic and socio-political contexts. Until we generate a
complex, contradictory, history of ourselves, it may be wise to treat the
iconography we have created with greater caution. The idea that ‘things were
different’ when persons such as George Bereday and Bill Brickman, and Joseph
Lauwerys and Brian Holmes were contributing to creating ‘the subject’ is true, of

11
R. COWEN

course. However, we need a harder-edged historical picture. Iconographies

normally contain touches of romance.
Certainly, it can immediately be accepted that Bereday, Brickman, Holmes and
Lauwerys were charismatic teachers; all available remembrances shine with
conviction on that theme (Cowen, 1993; McLean, 1981; Noah, 1984; Silova &
Brehm, 2010b). Certainly, it can be immediately accepted that they were all
institution-builders, in the sense that they all created (or individually contributed a
great deal) to the establishment of qualification structures, advanced seminar
groups, professional journals and Societies. They recruited and encouraged young
people with an interest in comparative education who wrote Ph.D. theses and tried
to create careers in the field of study. One obvious example is Lauwerys recruiting
Edmund King and Brian Holmes as potential comparativists: one of them had a
degree in classics and the other had a degree in physics. That has its charms, but a
harder-edged history would stress that neither of them fully recovered,
intellectually, from those initial identities.
Clearly, Bereday, Brickman, Holmes (and King) and Lauwerys were all creative
and original, although in very different ways. However, understanding the modes
of their creativity and their relationship with structures is not just a matter of
distinguishing Holmes (who was from Yorkshire and migrated to London) from
the other scholars who, as international migrants or as members of migrant
families, changed their country of residence. Nor is it sufficient to note, with or
without unkind intent, that when one is defining a field there is a lot of space for
creative activity – as Brickman wrote: “The field was wide open, and anyone who
so desired could leap into the vacuum” (quoted in Silova & Brehm, 2010a, p. 21).
The broader question remains: what were the relationships between social
structures (in this instance, academic ones), historical forces, and individual
biographies? It is here that we can see interesting divergent epistemic and
institutional moments.
One fascinating illustration of these themes is George Bereday himself.
Autobiographically, he was a polymath, and not only in terms of his delight in
languages. His early academic career and perhaps his continental European
assumptions about epistemology meant that he also had acquired a working
knowledge of a wide range of the social sciences. He was a brilliant lecturer (albeit
totally different in personal style from Lauwerys – Bereday was much more
flamboyant), but he took a great interest in doctoral supervision and systematised
the preparation of doctoral candidates in Teachers College, Columbia University.
Indeed that became one of the most famous doctoral programmes in the world
because its epistemic principles were made very explicit in a book on ‘method’
(Bereday, 1964).
Thus, there was a fascinating closure of the theme of autobiography and
academic structure and historical forces. The programme at Teachers College
aimed at ‘creativity’ because it institutionalised an autobiography: the academic
trajectory of a creative man whose own personal life had been shaped by the forces
of war. That autobiographical creativity, that personal way to brilliance, underwent
a stabilisation. The creativity was translated into a programme of doctoral
education. And the paradox? The paradox is not a paradox, but a contradiction: the

12
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

translation of individual creativity into an institutionalised training programme

defined competences that were ‘obviously’ necessary to do comparative education:
knowledge of languages, knowledge of a range of social sciences, the necessity to
reside overseas and so on.
In some simple ways, Lauwerys was similar to Bereday. Autobiographically,
Lauwerys too was a polymath (in the natural sciences, in languages, and in his
range of knowledge in history and sociology). He too was noticeably ‘European’ in
the elegance with which he spoke English and in the range of referents in his
lectures. In addition, of course, he had been deeply involved in World War II,
though the international migration of his family and himself was a consequence of
the Great War of 1914–1918.
However, although Lauwerys, in a number of very senior leadership
positions, had major influence on the new Academic Diploma in Education14
and the master’s programme in educational studies in the University of London
in the mid-‘60s, he made no especial effort to systematise the ‘training’ aspects
of the master’s programme in comparative education itself. He remained
unconvinced about the necessity to develop special methods for doing
comparative education, and he was even less convinced about the possibilities
of a creating a ‘predictive method’ for comparative education. He placed some
emphasis on trying to understand new phenomena (such as the growth of cities,
the growth of science, and demographic pressures) while sustaining a view of
the moral significance of comparative education as being linked with the themes
of war and peace (“Since war begins in the minds of men…”). He tended to
construe the Institute of Education’s taught courses in comparative education
around the themes of Nicholas Hans. The typical lecture programme covered
Hans’ factors of geographic and economic circumstances, language and race,
religions and political belief systems, along with a parallel lecture course which
permitted specialisation on France or the USA and, later, the USSR. A brilliant
lecturer, he did not personally dominate the doctoral supervision of most of the
students in the Department.
Thus, the closure between autobiography and academic structure15 in the
Institute’s comparative programme was not through the intellectual biography of
Lauwerys but through that of Holmes. At the master’s level, the teaching (if not the
Final Examinations) stressed understanding methodological positions, not least
through philosophies of science. At the Ph.D. level, Holmes became the main
supervisor in the Department and the crucial test of a good Ph.D. became the
extent to which students followed ‘the problem approach’.
A considerable systematisation of the doctorate (in comparative education) thus
occurred – by a different mix – in the Institute of Education in London as well as in
Teachers College, New York. What had begun as creativity – Holmes’ own
doctoral thesis, which became the text Problems in Education (1965), was an
extended justification of an agenda of approach in comparative education based on
post-relativity science and the thinking of Popper and John Dewey that was
intended to liberate the field – became an orthodoxy, a set of competences. More
and more doctoral theses in the Department were set up within this frame. Some
talented students refused the agenda of approach; some accepted it reluctantly and

13
R. COWEN

did not handle it well and were referred in their first viva; but generations of
students graduated. Holmes was brilliant at doctoral supervision and ran a tough-
minded and occasionally dramatic doctoral seminar. The irony was that he worked
within the increasingly confident orthodoxy of a specific scientific approach which
he had created in 1965 and which he continued to celebrate in terms of refining its
techniques (1981). Twenty years later, he was writing of his ‘paradigm shift’ –
convinced of its liberating potential for comparative education as a field of study
(1986). One does not get the same impression (about institutionalisations, about
orthodoxies, about the translation of the creatively autobiographical into the
programming of competence) from the literature on – or the literature created by –
Brickman (Silova & Brehm, 2010b).
Clearly there are no automatic sequences here. We need to know about the ways
in which, for example, Hans, Kandel, King, Ulich and so on turned their
autobiographies into legitimations not merely for their own comparative education
but also for the teaching and the supervision of others. How does a personal
‘politics of knowledge’ become, inside institutions, a ‘sociology of knowledge’ –
and when does it not (and why)?
The point is not merely antiquarian. The significant and continuing historical
and contemporary theme is the tension, in academic comparative education,
between creativity and competence and the changing social structures (here,
universities), autobiographies, and the historical forces of politics and economics
which shift the relations of creativity and competence.
Right now, for example, the ‘superstructure’ of academic life is changing: new
criteria for and forms of ‘success’ increasingly define competence as the ability to
attract funded research or to attract consultancy work. This competence is – per se –
a measurable and institutionally approved form of ‘creativity’ (in England, at least).
However although this form of creativity should contribute to rethinking the
intellectual capital of the field of academic comparative education, there is no
guarantee it will. Rather, the question shifts to: how much does the existing
intellectual capital of the field earn (in cash terms, as income) in the outside world?
For individual academics there is currently a desperate treadmill of grants or
consultancies under application, grants being researched and consultancies
conducted, and grants or consultancies for which reports are being written. A
technical, managerialist, vocabulary for this kind of consultancy and contract-
research market exists: ‘knowledge transfer’ or ‘third stream income’. Within such
pressures, the relationship between busy and urgent action to deliver research results
and the renewal of the intellectual capital of the field becomes problematic.
Overall then, we are in a situation in which new definitions are emerging of the
relationships between what counts as ‘competence’ and what counts as ‘creativity’
in the university; and new balances of trade are developing between universities
and think tanks and consultancy firms which are involved in trading (literally
‘trading’, as well as metaphorically trading) competence and creativity. Oddly
enough, this creates a fascinating new problem. Whereas in the past we have
argued furiously over our agenda of approach (our methodologies) and had
anxieties (Noah, 1974) over our agenda of attention (the topics we should study),

14
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

we probably now need to make more explicit our agenda of agglutination (who we
should associate with; before we get stuck to them).
In these circumstances, we are left with one of our ancient anxieties: inside
universities (and for us in academic comparative education) what are the sources
for the intellectual renewal of the field? One obvious answer is, of course, the
young.

THE COSTS OF CAREER TRAJECTORIES

Unfortunately, the young, through no fault of their own, have special problems
which (i) constrain and (ii) frame their competences and creativities.
The constraints include the availability of academic work, in times of economic
recession and of intense competition for academic jobs from a massively expanded
number of higher education students with advanced qualifications. The simple
counter-argument – that such developments are excellent because such pressures
will mean that universities select only the best and most creative talent – is not
merely simple. It is simplistic: such a proposition ignores the politics of
appointment to specific positions to specific universities at specific times and the
proposition takes for granted that what is always being sought, in appointments, is
the ‘most creative’ talent.
The ‘frames’ include the career structures within which young academics are
being invited to work. The frames include: specialisation; elongation; and
routinisation.
The academic ‘profession’ now has highly specialised roles, such as professors
who specialise in contract research, or professors who serve the university via their
consultancy roles, or professors who almost never teach but are specialist authors.
Other academics clearly choose a parallel career – to do a great deal of work in
‘management’, sustaining elements of an academic role up to a mid-career point,
before finally shifting into very senior managerial positions that suddenly define
the main career.
Each of these ‘lines’ constructs role models and multiple career paths which
diverge and message systems about promotion possibilities. For each there is an
apprenticeship. Thus, the academic profession in places such as England fractures
(as was always the case) because individuals discover they prefer some kinds of
work to other kinds of work. However the academic profession also fractures
because diverging career lines (towards divergent models of ‘a professor’) are
becoming part of the structures of promotion and its management in universities.
Currently the details of promotion criteria are writ smaller and smaller and
tighter and tighter. Partly the details are intended as a statement of ‘transparency’ –
linked to anxieties about possible law suits about discrimination. However the
details are also made visible because the role profile of academics is changing and
these changes are being managed. Thus the role changes are given explicit
specification by academic managers, not least ‘Officers for Human Resources’.
The managerial detailing of role profiles is analytically useful: the detailing
captures structural changes. For example, criteria for promotion in mid-career in
the social sciences now, almost always in England, include the necessity to have

15
R. COWEN

gained a series of research grants (covering, in technical terms, the Full Economic
Cost of an academic’s work). Initially the research grants do not have to be large.
Indeed, in the early stages of a career, it may be sufficient to have made
(unsuccessful) applications for a small number of small research grants. Later,
successful applications become a criterion for promotion. In England, such
problems are increasingly compounded by the shrinking of the size of the ‘grants-
market’; the growth of training courses in grant-application skills in almost all
universities; the increasing dominance by a small number of large institutions
(such as the Institute of Education) of the national pool of research funding; and
the saturation of the market by competition. Even large and very successful
institutions are starting to doubt whether they can push their percentage share of
the research grants market much higher. At the moment, the response is increased
specialisation within the professoriate, together with a great deal of flexibility in
arrangements about who is hired (at what prices) to reach which institutional
targets (until recently, REF targets; but suddenly and simply – financial targets).
However the growth of the ‘industry’ of contract research has added another
layer to the steps within a conventional academic career. This form of elongation
has been the growth of a category of worker known as a ‘research officer’ (of
various ranks, including ‘senior research officer’). Such persons are drawn from a
relatively large group of well-qualified persons who move from research project to
research project on short-term contracts. Certainly at the junior level they simply
apply for such positions – the themes and the sub-themes having already been
decided by the funder and the grant holder (the Principal Researcher who is
typically a senior academic). Thus the research officer, after appointment, is
allocated specific tasks within a project, with deadlines. In other words, the
emphasis is on research competence.
The growth in this sector within the broader category of ‘knowledge worker’
has been remarkable. Moving through a hierarchy of ‘research officer’ positions
and then sideways into a senior academic position was, two decades ago, very rare.
However, at the moment, the ‘research officer’ is a new layering within the
academic hierarchy, to be understood partly as an academic in extended training.
In other words, it is becoming more and more normal to think of ‘research officer’
as a step within an academic career; rather than as a parallel, alternative, career.
The emergence of a category ‘the researcher’ is an important form of career
elongation in itself – but that is an extra layer on top of an extra layer: a normal
career move now is gaining a ‘post-doc’. The point of a post-doctoral position –
some sort of funded scholarship which permits one or two years of full-time study
and writing – is to create a personal record of published research and scholarship.
The ‘post-doc’, common enough in the natural sciences for quite some time
(Simson, 1983), is a development of the last decade or so in the social sciences
including educational studies.
The only part of the academic career which has been shortened is the doctorate.
Except for the fact that now everyone needs a doctorate for academic work, the
academic career has not been specifically elongated by developments at the
doctoral level. On the contrary, a broad set of changes across Europe loosely linked
with ‘the Bologna process’ has organised the doctorate (Palomba, 2008) and, in

16
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

general, shortened it. Within a broad 3-2-3 pattern of first, second and third
degrees, the career-time of the doctorate has – in principle – been routinised.
However, something even more important is happening, at least in England. The
long tradition of the doctorate being something like a life-work in itself, certainly a
crucial defining career moment (as with Durkheim or Weber), has been altered.
Now the doctorate, as a piece of knowledge-work, has been routinised. The
doctorate has increasingly become a performance of an act of empirical research,
calling for the display of research technique and the careful reporting of research
results. Currently, standardised regimes of doctoral training place stronger
emphasis on introductions to methods and ‘academic writing’ skills; on systematic
tutorials which are supported by written summaries of what was discussed and
what were the problems and what action needs to be taken before the next tutorial;
and on theses tightly controlled for word length – for the Ph.D. degree as well as
‘professional’ degrees such as the EdD. It is also noticeable that the traditional
emphasis on ‘originality’ in the Regulations for the Award of the Doctorate in
English universities has increasingly been qualified by cautious phrasings of the
kind: ‘a contribution to knowledge… on the basis of the amount of work which a
student might reasonably be expected to do in a period of three (or four) years of
full time study…’. For the doctorate, the emphasis would seem to have shifted to
confirmations of the display of research competence within broader social
processes that are standardising the preparation of reliably-skilled research labour.
Such a view is coherent and sensible – once the conventional discourse about
economic globalisation, economic competition, robust and relevant research,
skilled and competent knowledge work, and good knowledge management, leading
to ‘innovation’ is accepted.
And if that view is not accepted? Obviously then, creativity has been crushed,
routinised competence rules, and – as we watch the collapse of the university –we
are close to the end of an era? We may be; but before we agree to all or any of
those propositions, let us take a step backwards and rehearse the formal themes of
the argument.

THE CONCLUSION

The theme of the chapter was to wonder about what were, and are, the ‘politics of
knowledge’ in comparative education. It was suggested, right at the beginning of
this wondering, that comparative education in some of its forms is politics and, in
all of its forms, is embedded in a range of politics. In the literature of comparative
education we know about this theme through the question of the uses and abuses of
academic comparative education – the social uses of comparative education
knowledge.
However, I refocused the topic to permit myself to think about the politics of the
creation of comparative education knowledge in universities. There were implicit
questions. For example, what passes into academic comparative education as
competence and creativity at specific moments of time and in specific places?
What are the structures of our universities and the surveillance regimes in which
they operate currently defining as preferred forms of competence and creativity?

17
R. COWEN

The orienting argument of the chapter drew on the vocabulary of C. W. Mills to

suggest that social structures would combine with biographies and historical forces
to shape competence (Illeris, 2009) and creativity (Larsen, 2010a) in the field of
study.
The longest and most formal argument was that we are experiencing a new
politics of knowledge. The contemporary creation myth is embedded in a discourse
about ‘quality’ and political talk about robust and relevant research and a specific
notion of social science as ‘facts’. In practice, the political and managerial rules
about creativity and competence in universities are changing: the surveillance
systems created to evaluate the English (and other) university system(s) stress
very precisely calibrated forms of ‘performance’–including, by extension, the
performance of the field of study of academic comparative education. The
measuring systems emphasise ‘quality’ (of teaching and of research), the ‘quality’
of individual performances and of institutional performances, within a discourse
about robust and relevant research. As the discourse and the measurements pass
from outside to the inside of universities, universities undergo what I once called
an ‘attenuation’: the locus ‘the university’ is no longer a space-box and its
definitions of ‘quality’ are no longer constructed in its own space-box. National
messages about quality, articulated by agencies, penetrate it and the surveillance
mechanisms are writ small in the interior procedures of each university.
In counterpoint, in this chapter there was an older illustration of a creation myth.
The argument (metaphorically, a ‘photograph’) was that Our History, notably our
iconography, might be permitting us to assign magic and romanticised moments to
our past when, by the earlier distinguished scholars in the field, creativities were
massively encouraged and a whole field of academic endeavour was to be filled
with new ideas. In ways that were not completely visible at the time – and which
are still not fully documented in accounts of, say, Danish and French and German
and Japanese comparative education (Wolhuter, Popov, Manzon & Leutwyler,
2008) – what occurred was a translation of the biographies of very creative
scholars into intended institutional creativities, that is to say, into master’s courses,
into doctoral programmes and so on. It was argued in this chapter that there were
indeed uneasy moments in this creation myth: in other words, that sociologically
there is some evidence that the biographic creativity was institutionalised and made
programmatic and routinised. That is understandable and probably, at a time of
institution-building, necessary; but the process needs analysis and not merely
admiration.
The most contemporary version of a creation myth (suggested by many vocal
politicians in times of ‘globalisation’ as a necessary job of the universities) was the
implicit claim that the academic career is being professionalised. In contrast, the
argument offered here was that ‘the academic career’ had been elongated and that
many of the stages in the elongation process confirm research competence and
techniques, efficiency in completion of projects, and the reporting and presentation
of results. The career structures for the academic and for the apprentice academic
are becoming specialised and routinised and carefully managed – with no obvious
bias towards the construction and celebration of ‘creativity’.

18
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

Thus – it might seem logical to conclude – all is doom and gloom. More precisely,
that we are moving backwards. We have moved from moments at the birth of the
field marked by an emphasis on creativity to duller times which are marked by an
emphasis on competence (at best); the routinisation of research; and (at worst) the
production of research which measures gaps between what should be and what is,
so that decision-makers may make decisions.
Not quite. The analysis can be made more nuanced than that.
Certainly, one of the most interesting shifts in the politics of knowledge in the
field was how creativities in scholarship were turned into routines in training
programmes. However, it can also be noted that some instances produced
unexpected reactions – the rejection of iconic approaches, as for example in
Holmes’ sharp rejection of the epistemology of Hans. Equally clearly, this was and
is far from being a standardised process. There are no suggestions which I know
about that claim the creativities of William Brickman or Rolland Paulston, for
example, became programmatic training competences.
Certainly, one of the most interesting shifts in the politics of knowledge in the
field is the insistence on ‘robust and relevant research’ (under a range of
synonyms) in a range of countries. However, what then needs explanation is the
creativity of Australia-based or Australia-linked academics whose papers in
academic comparative education are a pleasure to read: illustratively, Jane
Kenway, Bob Lingard, Fazal Rizvi, and Tony Welch.16
One key, probably, to understanding some of the politics and sociology of these
processes is an alertness to the separation of knowledge from the knower. This
theme has been brilliantly opened up by Basil Bernstein (2000).
Mutatis mutandis, this explains a great deal about creativities in comparative
education. At the simplest level of autobiography, it was the rigidity of the
epistemic identity of Holmes (as a physicist) which made it impossible for him to
accept the ‘creativity’ of Hans, who was a sort of historian; and of course the
epistemic identity of King, so strongly that of a classics scholar, helped to
construct the mutual incomprehensibility he and Holmes lived through with
difficulty, together, for more than 20 years.
More importantly, the point permits us to re-locate how we think about
HEFC(E) and QAA and about the elongated academic careers of young academics,
with their apparent emphasis on routine research, and the perennial display of
competences and a range of efficiencies and iconic professors who insist on
specific methodological positions or assert that comparative education is a
particular and permanent form of ‘science’ or ‘a comparative science’ or an
‘interdisciplinary social science’ (or really ‘anthropology’ and so on).
All of these forms of invasion, which separate the knowledge from the knower –
in extreme form, in the massive claims for the output of ‘quality’ in the name of
robust and relevant research – are crucial in the construction of creativity. As with
methodologies, it is not their acceptance but their thoughtful rejection which
releases creativities. It will be the rejection of the doctoral model of training – by
individuals – which will guarantee creativity. HEFC(E) does not and cannot create
creativities. It will be academics and advanced students inside universities finding

19
R. COWEN

ways to cope with HEFC(E) – or their international equivalents – while rejecting

the official instrumentalities who will create ways to be creative.
Overall, however, the situation is a little gloomier. It cannot be expected that the
overconfidence of politicians – English ones, anyway – and that they know what
universities are for will diminish. The English politicians are – to borrow a phrase
– paying the piper. They wish and, since the abolition of the University Grants
Committee, they are increasingly determined and able to name the tune the piper
will play. This simplistic notion that because the state (in some countries) pays for
the universities, the state can and should determine research agendas – a situation
into which the English are edging – is startling in a mature democracy. Manifestly,
it is difficult to routinise competence – the work of the English university
surveillance agencies already stretches over decades. It is strange in the extreme to
try to routinise research agendas and even stranger to try to routinise the
production of creativity.
Let us see how much damage is done before an older and wiser view re-
emerges: only some very special institutions, which insist on the merging of
knowledge with the knower, which insist on integrating the identity of the
institutions and the identity of the knower around the possibilities for disputation
and competition to know, brilliantly, certain forms of knowledge, seem to be able
to create startling outbursts of creativity. Among such very special institutions, in
most societies, are some universities.
Labelling them unicorns (or worldclass universities) and setting out to manage
their construction may not be an act of wisdom. Universities are not research
machines. They are not assembled, like certain children’s toys. They grow and,
like creativity in comparative education, they take a while to grow. Managerial
force-feeding is perhaps not the wisest way to treat them.

NOTES
1
At the time of the preparation of the talk on which this chapter is based a number of books and
papers were ‘forthcoming’. These citations have been changed if such material is now in print.
2
This phrasing is used to distinguish academic comparative education (as a field of study in
universities) from ‘consultancy comparative education’ or the ‘comparative education’ done by the
OECD, the World Bank, PISA, and so on. It is tempting to use the acronym ACE, rather than write
out ‘academic comparative education’ every time the intended referent is ‘a field of study based in
universities which works to understand theoretically and intellectually the shape-shifting of
‘education’ as it moves transnationally amid the interplay of international political, cultural and
economic hierarchies with domestic politics and forms of social power’. However, the temptations
to call the field ACE – and to repeat my definition of ‘academic comparative education’ – have both
been resisted.
3
The phrasings are taken from C. W. Mills (1959).
4
This unfortunate expression (presumably taken from the work-world of business and industry) was
subsequently softened to stress, for the university world, ‘quality assurance and enhancement’. It is
this phrasing which is now routinely used inside universities, in internal memoranda and so on.
5
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/
6
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/
7
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/reform/

20
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

8
There were severe complaints about ‘impact’ as an indicator of the quality of research, in terms of
the simplistic politics of the intent to measure it, the criteria for its measurement, and anxiety about
its corrosive potential for damage to some fields of study, such as the humanities. Overall, however,
in the last two decades, resistance from academics has not been audible, except for very sharp, early
complaints from the London School of Economics and Political Science about the quality of ‘the
peers’ who visited it to look at its teaching. There were also early complaints from Vice-Chancellors
about the high economic cost of ‘measuring quality’ in the ways demanded by the external agencies.
By 2006, the complaints about the financial and direct labour costs of collecting information for
the agencies had began to have some effect. Some rethinking occurred. A new Research Excellence
Framework, a little more linked to the measurement of quality by metrics (which reduces some
costs), will make its judgements in and after 2014. The REF replaces the evaluation system called
the Research Assessment Exercise whose first ‘exercise’ was undertaken almost 20 years ago.
9
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/Physics08.asp
10
“Definitions of quality levels:
4*: Quality that is world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour.
3*: Quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which
nonetheless falls short of the highest standards of excellence.
2*: Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.
1*: Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.
Unclassified: Quality that falls below the standard of nationally recognised work. Or work which
does not meet the published definition of research for the purposes of this assessment” (Research
Assessment Exercise, 2008).
11
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/
12
At the risk of repetition, it will be recalled that the English definition within the RAE of the highest
two levels of quality of research for individuals and for institutions was short and elegantly phrased:
four-star quality would be “world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour” while
three-star would be quality that “is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and
rigour but which nonetheless falls short of the highest standards of excellence” (Research
Assessment Exercise, 2008). That is quite succinct, given that the concepts are elusive. However,
the concepts are so elusive – operationally – that it would be analytically careless to agree that the
RAE was, centrally and crucially, about quality. Evidently, it was about measures of quality which
were publicly visible on the basis of which money might be legitimately distributed to the
universities. It was also about a political shift: a change from the University Grants Committee,
dominated by academics and insulated from direct political interference, to a steering system which
was more managerial and more obviously linked to political agendas about what universities should
be doing. The new systems of HEFC(E) and RAE and QAA permitted the surveillance,
classification, ordering, and regulation of a major national investment: a system of universities that
had been massively expanded by political action in the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act –
which was also the date of the creation of the Higher Education Funding Council.
13
Of course the redefinition of knowledge and its social and political and economic relations has
happened many times in the history of universities – the universities themselves, in their medieval
forms, marked such a moment and have been reshaped in specific places in other such moments
(Ringer, 1969; Rothblatt, 1997; Röhrs, 1995.)
14
The Academic Diploma in Education was an academically difficult, theoretically-oriented, post-
graduate qualification for career teachers which guarded admission to the newly-invented MA
degrees in education in the University of London, Faculty of Education, and the Institute of
Education, in the mid-1960s.
15
The historical forces included the consolidation into the middle classes, through formal
qualifications, of parts of the teaching profession which was (then) relatively independent of the
British State.
16
Stephen Carney is an Australian and his papers are a pleasure to read. I have not placed him on this
list because he works in Denmark and so does not benefit from Australian forms of quality control.

21
R. COWEN

REFERENCES

Altbach, P. & Balan, J. (Eds.) (2007). World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in
Asia and Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Becker, R. F. J. (2004). The politics of performativity and universities: A comparative analysis between
England, the Netherlands, and Germany. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Institute of Education,
University of London: London.
Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964). Comparative method in education. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Thoughts on the Trivium and Quadrivium: The divorce of knowledge from the
knower. In B. Bernstein, Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity (pp. 81–86). Lanham: Rowman.
Besley, T. (Ed.). (2009). Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education:
International perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Besley, T. & Peters, M. A. (2009). Neoliberalism, performance and the assessment of educational
research quality: Comparing the United Kingdom, Australia & New Zealand. In T. Besley (Ed.),
Assessing the quality in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 27–48). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Brickman, W. W. (1960). A historical introduction to comparative education. Comparative Education
Review, 3(3), 6–13.
Brickman, W. W. (1966). Prehistory of comparative education to the end of the eighteenth century.
Comparative Education Review, 10(1), 30–47.
Brickman, W. W. (1988). History of comparative education. In T. N. Postlethwaite (Ed.), Тhе
encyclopaedia of comparative education and national systems of education (pp. 3–7). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Carney, S. (2009). Negotiating policy in an age of globalization: Exploring ‘policyscapes’ in Denmark,
Nepal, China. Comparative Education Review, 53(1), 63–88.
Carnoy, M. (2006). Rethinking the comparative – And the international. Comparative Education
Review, 50(4), 551–570.
Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cook, B. J., Hite, S. J. & Epstein, E. H. (2004). Discerning trends, contours, and boundaries in
comparative education: A survey of comparativists and their literature. Comparative Education
Review, 48(2), 123–149.
Cowen, R. (1973). A query concerning developments within and the responsibility of comparative
education. Canadian and International Education, 1(2), 15–29.
Cowen, R. (1993, August 30). Obituary: Professor Brian Holmes. The Independent. Retrieved from
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-professor-brian-holmes-1464258.html
Cowen, R. (Ed.). (1996). Evaluation of higher education systems in comparative perspective: World
yearbook of education, 1996. London: Kogan Page.
Cowen, R. (2000). The market-framed university: The new ethics of the game. In J. Cairns, R. Gardner &
D. Lawton (Eds.), Values and the curriculum (pp. 93–105). London: Woburn Press.
Cowen, R. (2006). Acting comparatively upon the educational world: Puzzles and possibilities. Oxford
Review of Education, 32(5), 561–573.
Cowen, R. (2009a). Then and now: Unit ideas and comparative education. In R. Cowen &
A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 1277–1294).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Cowen, R. (2009b). On history and on the creation of comparative education. In R. Cowen &
A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 7–10). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer.
Cowen, R. (2009c). The transfer, translation and transformation of educational processes: And their
shape-shifting? Comparative Education, 45(3), 315–327.
Cowen, R. & Kazamias, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). International handbook of comparative education.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

22
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

Crossely, M. & Watson K. (2003). Comparative and international research in education:

Globalisation, context and difference. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Deem, R. S., Hillyard, S. & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education and the new
managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Epstein, E. H. (2008). Setting the normative boundaries: Crucial epistemological benchmarks in
comparative education. Comparative Education, 44(4), 373–386.
Epstein, D., Boden, R., Deem, R., Rizvi, F. & Wright, S. (Eds.). (2008). Geographies of knowledge,
geometries of power: Higher education in the 21st century. World yearbook of education. London:
Fraser, S. E. (1964). Jullien’s plan for comparative education 1816–1817. New York: Teachers College
Columbia University.
Fraser, S. E. & Brickman, W. W. (1968). A history of international and comparative education:
Nineteenth-century documents. Glenview: Scott Foresman.
Friedrichs, R. W. (1970). A sociology of sociology. New York: Free Press, Collier-Macmillan.
Halls, W. D. (1990). Trends and issues in comparative education. In W. D. Halls (Ed.), Comparative
education: Contemporary issues and trends. Paris: UNESCO.
Harris-Huemmert, S. (Ed.). (2010). Special issue: Evaluation of higher education. Research in
Comparative and International Education, 5(1).
Hausmann, G. (1967). A century of comparative education, 1785–1885. Comparative Education
Review, 11(February): 1–21.
Higginson, J. H. (1979). Selections from Michael Sadler: Studies in world citizenship. Liverpool: Dejall &
Meyorre.
Hoecht, A. Q. (2006). Quality assurance in UK higher education: Issues of trust, control, professional
autonomy and accountability. Higher Education, 51(4), 541–63.
Holmes, B. (1965). Problems in education: A comparative approach. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Holmes, B. (1981). Comparative education: Some considerations of method. London: Allen & Unwin.
Holmes, B. (1986). Paradigm shifts in comparative education. In P. G. Altbach & G. P. Kelly (Eds.),
New approaches to comparative education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Illeris, K. (2009). International perspectives on competence development: Developing skills and
capabilities. London: Routledge.
Kazamias, A. M. (2001). Re-inventing the historical in comparative education: Reflections on a protean
episteme by a contemporary player. Comparative Education, 37(4), 439–449.
Kazamias, A. M. (2009). Forgotten men, forgotten themes: The historical-philosophical-cultural and
liberal humanist motif in comparative education. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.),
International handbook of comparative education (pp. 37–58). Dordrecht: Springer.
King, E. J. (1965). The purpose of comparative education. Comparative Education, 1(3), 147–159.
King, E. J. (1968). Comparative studies and educational decision. London: Methuen.
King, R. (2007). The regulatory state in an age of governance: Big sticks and soft words. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
King, R. (2009). Governing universities globally: Organizations, rankings and regulation. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Larsen. M. (2010a). Creativity and curiosity in comparative education. In M. Larsen (Ed.), New
thinking in comparative education: Honouring the work of Robert Cowen (pp. 179–194).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Larsen, M. (Ed.). (2010b). New thinking in comparative education: Honouring the work of Robert
Cowen. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Manzon, M. (2011). Comparative education: The construction of a field. Hong Kong: Comparative
Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Leonard, D. (2001). A woman’s guide to doctoral studies. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lewin, K. M. & Akyeampong, K. (Eds.). (2009). Access to education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Special
issue (37). Comparative Education, 45(2).
Marginson, S. (2007a). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 131–42.

23
R. COWEN

Marginson, S. (2007b). Global university rankings. In S. Marginson (Ed.), Prospects of higher education:
Globalisation, market competition, public goods and the future of the university (pp. 79–100).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Marginson, S. & Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher
education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 306–329.
Masemann, V., Bray, M. & Manzon, M. (Eds.). (2007). Common interests, uncommon goals: Histories
of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies and its members. Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre -The University of Hong Kong.
McLean, M. (1981). Joseph A. Lauwerys: A festschrift. Education Libraries Bulletin, Supplement 22.
London: University of London Institute of Education Library.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitter, W. (2009). Comparative education in Europe. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.),
International handbook of comparative education (pp. 87–100). Dordrecht: Springer.
Naidoo, R. (2008). Higher education: A powerhouse for development in a neo-liberal age? In
D. Epstein, R. Boden, R. Deem, F. Rizvi & S. Wright (Eds.), Geographies of knowledge, geometries
of power: Higher education in the 21st century. World yearbook of education (pp. 248–265).
London: Routledge.
Neave, G. (1988). On the cultivation of quality, efficiency, and enterprise: An overview of recent trends
in higher education in Western Europe. European Journal of Education 23(1/2), 7–23.
Neave, G. (2009). The evaluative state as a policy of transition. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.),
International handbook of comparative education (pp. 551–568). Dordrecht: Springer.
Neave, G. & van Vught, F. A. (1991). Prometheus bound. The changing relationship between
governance and higher education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon.
Ninnes, P. (2008). Ancestors, founders and heroes in comparative education: An historical discourse
analysis. In V. Rust & J. Zajda (Eds.), Globalisation and comparative education research: The
history of comparative education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ninnes, P. & Burnett, G. (2003). Comparative education research: Poststructuralist possibilities.
Comparative Education, 39(3), 279–297.
Ninnes, P. & Mehta, S. (Eds.). (2004). Re-imagining comparative education: Postfoundational ideas
and applications for critical times. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Noah, H. J. (1974). Fast fish and loose fish in comparative education. Comparative Education Review,
18, 341–347.
Noah, H. J. (1984). A colleague’s reflections. Comparative Education Review, 28(1), 1–3.
Palomba, D. (Ed.). (2008). Changing universities in Europe and the “Bologna Process”: A seven
country study. Rome: Aracné.
Paulston, R. (1994). Comparative and international education: Paradigms and theories. In T. Husén &
T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Paulston, R. (2000). Imagining comparative education: Past, present, future. Compare, 30, 353–367.
Peters, M. A. & Besley, T. (2007). Neoliberalism, performance and the assessment of research quality.
In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Knowledge economy, development and the future of higher education.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Phillips, D. (2006). Michael Sadler and comparative education. Oxford Review of Education, 32(1), 39–54.
Research Assessment Exercise. (2008). Annex 1 – Quality profiles and definitions of quality levels.
Retrieved from http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2006/01/docs/annexes.pdf
Ringer, F. K. (1969). The decline of the German Mandarins: The German academic community,
1890–1933. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rizvi, F. (2009). Internationalization and the assessment of research quality in education. In Besley, T.
(Ed.), Assessing the quality of educational research in higher education: International perspectives
(pp. 49–58). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Rothblatt, S. (1997). The modern university and its discontents: The fate of Newman’s legacies in
Britain and America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24
 ROBUSTLY RESEARCHING THE RELEVANT

Röhrs, H. (1995). The classical German concept of the university and its influence on higher education
in the United States. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Rust, V. D., Johnstone, B. & Allaf, C. (2009). Reflections on the development of comparative
education. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative
education (pp. 121–138). Dordrecht: Springer.
Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington: World Bank.
Sanderson, M. (1972). The universities and British industry 1850–1970. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sanderson, M. (1999). Education and economic decline in Britain, 1870 to the 1990s. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Silova, I. & Brehm, W. C. (Eds.). (2010a). For the love of knowledge: William W. Brickman and his
comparative education. In I. Silova & W. C. Brehm (Eds.), Speaking of Brickman. European
Education, 42(2), 17–36.
Silova, I. & Brehm, W. C. (Eds.). (2010b). Speaking of Brickman. European Education, 42(2), 17–36.
Simson, R. (1983). How the Ph.D. came to Britain: A century of struggle for postgraduate education.
Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2009). Comparison: Quo vadis? In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.),
International handbook of comparative education (pp. 1143–1158). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sutherland, M., Watson K. & Crossley, M. (2007). The British Association for International and
Comparative Education (BAICE). In V. Masemann, M. Bray & M. Manzon (Eds.), Common
interests, uncommon goals: Histories of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies and
its members (pp. 155–169). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of
Hong Kong.
Ursin, J. (2008). In quality we trust? The case of quality assurance in Finnish universities. In D. Epstein,
R. Boden, R. Deem, F. Rizvi & S. Wright (Eds.), Geographies of knowledge, geometries of power:
Higher education in the 21st century. World yearbook of education (pp. 128–141). London:
Routledge.
Vidovich, L. (2002). Quality assurance in Australian higher education: Globalisation and “steering at a
distance”. Higher Education, 43(3), 391–408.
Wolhuter, C., Popov, N., Manzon, M. & Leutwyler, B. (Eds.). (2008). Comparative education at
universities worldwide. Sofia: Bureau of Education Services (with the assistance of WCCES).

Robert Cowen
Emeritus Professor of Education
Institute of Education
University of London; and
Senior Research Fellow
Department of Education
Oxford University

25
 S. KARIN AMOS

2. COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN LATE

MODERNITY
Tensions between Accelerating the Disenchantment of the World and
Opening Pedagogical Spaces of Possibility

Dear Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is an interesting coincidence that the venue of the conference, the University
of Uppsala, and the University of Tübingen, where I come from, have an equally
long history: they were both founded in the same year, in 1477, at the very dawn of
what historians refer to as modernity. In the many centuries that have elapsed since
then, socio-cultural relations have, in an uneven process of acceleration and
deceleration, become both more intensive and more extensive. Today, cooperation
and exchange on all academic levels have greatly intensified, often under the
umbrella of European programmes, such as Erasmus. When telling students at
Tübingen that I was coming to Uppsala, I learned that many of them had already
been here and had spent a most growth-conducive – in the Deweyan sense – and
memorable time.
Europeanisation and globalisation have repercussions on all formerly nationally
bounded disciplines, including education, and some aspects of the current
transformations of education is what I will be concerned with in my keynote.
Viewed in the perspective of the longue durée, today’s transformations in
education appear only as an episode. If challenged to assess their meaning, one is
well advised to seek a “distant mirror”, in the words of the American historian
Barbara Tuchman, and the organisers of the conference have decided with good
reason that we should consider Enlightenment as the point of reference. It was then
that the universitas as a special form of communitas between scholars and students
was reshaped as the place to not only seek erudition but to create new knowledge.
Especially since the second half of the 20th century, the crucial role of knowledge
in modern societies has received greater attention by economists and policy-
makers. In combination with discussions about access and equity this has
translated into a historically unprecedented universal trend of educational
expansion. As Michael Peters (2009) recently brought to the attention of the
international community of educational comparativists, the open education and
open science movements are an excellent example of the morphodynamics of this
trend towards ever greater access to, and the democratisation of, knowledge. Is this
not a clear indication that we are fulfilling the promises of Enlightenment to ever

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 27–44.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
S. K. AMOS

greater extents? Or, take the example of cosmopolitanism, for which Thomas
Popkewitz’s (2007) analysis has enriched our field. Is it not true that globalisation
and Europeanisation provide greatly facilitated exchange and mobility – this is a
topic on which Fazal Rizvi (2009) has contributed significantly, drawing, amongst
others, on Ulrich Beck’s concept of the “polygamy of spaces” (Beck, 2000). Then
again, do not even the open education and the open science movements clearly
privilege certain forms of knowledge and competencies over others, thus limiting
the unfettered pursuit of knowledge? Thinking of terms such as the knowledge-
based economy or the knowledge society, are not the authors in The Knowledge-
based Economy and Higher Education in Europe (Jessop, Fairclough & Wodak,
2008) justified in their criticisms that we need to look closely at what kind of
knowledge is privileged and who has access to it? And as far as moving around
freely and without impediments goes: those of you who attended this year’s
WCCES Congress in Istanbul know that in spite of the large number of attendants,
many of our colleagues could not come due to visa restrictions, giving the
conference theme of bordering and rebordering a very tangible meaning. Also in
the world of Appadurai’s flows and scapes (1996), countries and borders are alive
and well, for a large part of the global population.
Let me therefore jump into medias res and say that I fully agree with the
thematic description of this year’s CESE Conference; that we need to concern
ourselves with the tensions and contradictions of Enlightenment, such as the still
unresolved relationship between individual and group rights and hence with the
relation between universalism and particularism or the problematics of the concept
of the person1 (Esposito 2010).
The particular tension or contradiction I will be concerned with departs from
a specific dichotomy. On the one hand, as comparativists we are called upon to
be part of the reembedding, not to say the transformation of education, by
providing knowledge of how to best shape and implement ongoing reforms.
Undeniably, it is in this area that new professional opportunities arise for
comparativists as nomadic experts, creating new possibilities on all levels of
educational policy, to refer to Martin Lawn’s and Bob Lingard’s (2002) work,
not the least of which is the transnational one. On the other hand, as
educationists we are also bound by important traditions in our discipline to
critically reflect on the implications for late modern societal and subject
formations. However, this is a task less sought after under present
circumstances. Therefore, my topic, “Comparative education in late modernity:
Tensions between accelerating the disenchantment of the world and opening of
pedagogical spaces of possibility”, takes up the question articulated in this
conference’s thematic focus: what is the relation between our tasks as
comparativists in engaging with educational policy on all levels and our critical
tasks of analysing and interpreting societal developments? In other words, what
is the relationship between being concerned with the insertion of the next
generation into the given social order – a task required of education since the
beginning of modern mass education – and being concerned with providing
opportunities, opening-up pedagogical spaces for the next generation; a critical

28
 COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN LATE MODERNITY

enablement, a distancing in order to self-reflectively relate to society? The latter

aspect was formulated from the emerging discipline itself and was less, even if
not exclusively, attributable to an expectation from its societal environment.
The next section will be concerned with selected observations on the discipline
of education. The focus will be on the two major strands just introduced that are
both related to the project of modernity. A strong affirmation of the basic tenets
and key universalist concepts: the individual, the subject, the child, the learner,
autonomy, self-direction, etc. on the one hand and, equally fundamental, a
permanent questioning and revising of these tenets and concepts. I will further
argue that in order to understand these two perspectives more fully, it is not
sufficient to consider them spatially, affirming “thereness” on the one hand, and
distancing and withdrawing on the other, but to consider them with regards to
time-relations, acceleration and deceleration. Affirming “thereness” reinforces
acceleration by adjusting the psychic dispositions of the next generation external,
i.e. societal requirements, while distancing and withdrawing reinforces
deceleration. A current theory of the sociology of time emphasising this distinction
will also be introduced in this section.
Against this background, the guiding tertium comparationis I would
therefore like to introduce is the acceleration/deceleration distinction. With this
distinction I will be using a particular framing of societal development from
modernity to late modernity, claiming that the transformations associated with it
encompass not only a spatial reembedding of national education systems
establishing or reconstituting relations between local, regional, national and
transnational levels but that they are simultaneously linked to transformations of
societal relations to time. Hence, it is argued that they have to be considered in
a “spatio-tempo” context. The former shift is well discussed in theories of
globalisation and internationalisation, in considerations of international
educational governance as well as in discussions of scales, scapes, spaces and
scopes, while the latter, although frequently referred to or implicitly included
when relating current educational changes to processes of “acceleration”
(e.g. the knowledge society, the creative economy, lifelong learning) has
received less theoretical attention.2
In a next step, these systematic deliberations will be examined in a historical
perspective with three period distinctions: Enlightenment here defined as early
modernity; high modernity, reaching its peak in the 20th century; and late
modernity, which has emerged in the latter decades of the last century and
constitutes our present period. The examples of local manifestations of these
relations are chosen according to a broadly ideal typical notion in a Weberian
sense: Europe, in this case, German educational thought, will be taken as
representative of Enlightenment, that is early modernity; the United States,
Dahrendorf’s “Applied Enlightenment”, to epitomise high modernity; and a
“placeless” international or transnational space, which is in a world polity
perspective equally inherently western in nature, as representative of late
modernity.3

29
S. K. AMOS

ON THE DISCIPLINE OF EDUCATION – SOME

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS

Lutz Koch, one of the authors of a recent publication on the state and the future of
theoretical education, has pointed out that despite the changes in the meaning of
education as a scientific/scholarly discipline over time, one fundamental distinction
has persisted: education being understood as a practical, ethical discipline versus a
non-ethical understanding of education that is based on researching pedagogical
practice with theoretical intentions (2009, p. 79). Introducing a different dualism,
education might also be described as having an empirical and a speculative end –
speculative used here in the original sense, as pure, non-experience-based
perception. As Koch further argued, it is this approach to theory that modern
education is about to lose which also implies that it no longer concerns itself with
the problematic of grounding and legitimating norms in a theoretically
sophisticated sense, i.e. it no longer problematises the empirical. The same
tendencies may be observed in other disciplines that are similarly constituted as
education, such as sociology or anthropology, even psychology.
To illustrate that the issue behind these terminological conventions is not
peculiar to the development of the discipline in Germany, where Idealism casts a
long shadow, I would like to remind us of the late Rolland Paulston’s mapping
project (1993, 1996, 1999) which showed that there is always one great distinction,
i.e. that between an emphasis on Enlightenment’s faith in progress and
perfectibility and a sceptical one, equally rooted in Enlightenment, questioning the
basis of our certainties and confidences, lately most prominently associated with
the postmodern debate, that is constitutive of our field. Taking-up Paulston’s work,
as has already been done in several countries, updating it and applying it to
different national or transnational settings of comparative education, becomes a
valuable tool in assessing the context-specific appropriations and variations of this
fundamental dichotomy that characterises education as an agonistic discipline.4 The
relation between these polar orientations is rarely balanced. Usually paradigms
belonging to the one rather than the other become dominant for a while, leading to
different peaks in currency over time.
Presently, there is an emphasis on empirical research expressed in the favoured
designs of quasi-experiments and large-scale assessments, in combination with the
rise of the evidence-based paradigm that informs practice and policy and shapes
education according to a (technical) science model that is to provide the means for
pre-established applied ends. It allows for interesting alliances between detached
observer positions, the non-normative understanding of science and melioristic
interests. It thus may be said that the current confidence for certainty consists of a
strong faith in empirical science approximating quasi-causal relationships which
accords well with scientisation as part of an overall transnational societal trend. In
fact, when compared to the predominance of the science model, the “other”, this
critical understanding, which is always instantly recognisable as normative,
appears to be hopelessly speculative in the current pejorative sense, unscientific
and therefore outdated. Not to be misunderstood, I am not blind to the flaws of the
past. There were segments in our academic output that were not characterised by

30
 COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN LATE MODERNITY

high levels of theoretical and methodical sophistication. This justified critique

however, is situated on a different level than the point Lutz Koch and others are
making, i.e. what are the implications for our discipline and thus, by necessity, for
its comparative part, if education is reconstructed with an almost exclusive
emphasis on a particular understanding of the empirical – a tendency that can be
observed in many countries.
This tendency is reaffirmed because the non-evidence-based science of
education is not only viewed as imprecise and lacking in scientific rigour, it also
lost its previous function of being linked to a positive imaginary of possibilities.
This is not only because the last utopian energies seem to have largely been spent
in the alternative educational movements of the ‘70s, which is when norms such as
autonomy, self-determination, etc. had great orienting force, but it is also because
they are absorbed in today’s model of education as a technical discipline. In a
sense, the utopian and the technical are collapsed into one. The self-directed
learner making autonomous decisions on when, where and what he or she wants to
learn, is but one of several appropriations of the concept of Bildung, formation or
education. The very ubiquity of education and its variants in public, political and
economic discourse turns them into fuzzy terms, into plastic words that can take on
almost any meaning. Deprived of their denotative dimension, they are lost in
connotation.
The tendency towards the scientisation of education in the sense of turning it
exclusively into a technical science is, as I will argue in the sections to follow,
related to a change of societal time relations. More recently, one of the most
encompassing and challenging sociological theories of time has been suggested by
Hartmut Rosa in Beschleunigung (2005). Rosa distinguished between four basic
relations of modernisation: 1) social relations: differentiation; 2) cultural relations:
rationalisation; 3) subjective relations: individualisation; 4) nature relations:
instrumentalisation, domestication.
Modernisation or rationalisation, according to Rosa, may not only be
distinguished according to the four dimensions mentioned, but also with regards to
three dimensions of acceleration: technological acceleration, social change and the
acceleration of the pace of life. Technological acceleration may be illustrated with
the example of transportation: from horse, to steam engine, to automobile to
aircraft. Social change refers to the increase in the deterioration-rate of
expectations and experience-orienting actions as well as the shrinkage of
timeframes determining function, value and action relations or spheres. The most
prominent illustration of this would be the transition from inter- to intra-
generational change. The acceleration of the pace of life refers to the condensation
and contraction of episodes of action. More tasks have to be fulfilled in ever
shorter periods of time. As is obvious, these three dimensions of acceleration are
considered separately for systematic reasons, but are of course closely intertwined.
Thus, the acceleration of the pace of life is intricately related to technological
innovation, especially to modern information and communication technologies.
Undeniably, the intensity and frequency of interaction, a heightened awareness
of the finite globe, a main characteristic of the age of globality (Shaw, 2000), and

31
S. K. AMOS

the ongoing technological revolution all confirm Rosa’s observation on the current
intense phase of acceleration. As Rosa has also shown, societal acceleration is not
an even process, but occurs in bursts and bouts. All three eras considered here,
Enlightenment as early modernity, high modernity and current, late modernity are
characterised by distinctive phases of acceleration. With Enlightenment started the
“Entsicherung”, the dissociation from certain and given (pre-established) orders;
the loss of the transcendent-transcendental “anchor” and a very intensely
experienced phase of acceleration. One need only to remember that it was Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe who coined the term velociferic – a combination of velocity
and Lucifer5 – to indicate the experience of life as it was lived in fast motion.

ENLIGHTENMENT AND EDUCATION

There are many variants of this highly influential period in the history of ideas. In
the context of this conference, the Swedish and Scottish versions have already been
mentioned, and to these may be added the example of the German Aufklärung. It is
comprised of utilitarian strands as well as speculative and sceptical ones.
The emergence of modern education thus coincided with a “burst of
acceleration”, when the future was no longer conceived of as a repetition of the
past but as open and “shapable”. The ensuing processes of rationalisation affected
educational relations as a social practice, deeply. A group of German
Enlightenment Pedagogues, the so-called “philanthropes”, took a utilitarian stance
and emphasised industry, discipline and general usefulness. Their pedagogical
approaches fit well with Foucault’s concept of the disciplinary society. Successful
“insertion” of individuals into the given social order that came to be epitomised by
the factory is the main characteristic of this and other early visions of a
technologically-oriented pedagogical theory. Somewhat simplistically but on the
whole perhaps not incorrectly put, the philanthropes considered it their main task
to adapt the dispositions of the educands to societal expectations and requirements.
Even if it is hardly accidental that the 18th century emphasised the plasticity of
the human psyche, stressing its adaptability to ever-changing environments,
technical intervention was limited on two fronts: by modern science’s state of
development and by the fact that education, at that time, was still related to
philosophy and theology.
Another strand of Enlightenment thinking was more concerned with
belabouring the consequences of the tear, the rift, the break, the difference in the
fabric of human and social relations caused by a final severance of the
transcendent-transcendental safeguard in the “beyond”, in the divine order. It is
from philosophers such as Immanuel Kant that the modern quest for a pedagogical
space of possibility originates (Schäfer, 2009), a space of which he proclaimed that
it could not be founded in the empirical world. Kant turned René Descartes’ “I
think, therefore I am” upside-down into “I am, therefore I think”. As a human
being, I am endowed with the capacity to reason, as expressed in the slogan:
sapere aude [dare to use your mind, dare to know]. Kant did not hesitate to
confront the transcendental loss, the disenchantment of the world as Max Weber

32
 COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN LATE MODERNITY

would later term it, without finding an ultimately satisfying answer. In his writings
on education, the problem becomes particularly obvious. On the one hand he states
that man is nothing but what education makes of him and that to become educated
one needs other human beings who have already been educated themselves, but the
final stage of education – moralisation – is not accessible through technical
intervention as are the previous ones. At the same time, the final stage, though
permanently uncertain, can only be attained by having passed through the earlier
ones, hence the dialectic of Freiheit und Zwang [freedom and force]. The stages in
question are labelled as disciplining, cultivation and civilisation: learning to subdue
one’s animal nature, learning cultural techniques such as reading and writing, and
becoming acquainted with and adopting the mores and values of society. The final
stage, however – moralisation – cannot logically be deduced from the others.
Whereas the first stages might be termed socialisation or enculturation, which is
the insertion of the individual into a given social order, the last and decisive stage
indicates a relation between the individual to himself and the world which is only
possible if the human being is free. Wilhelm von Humboldt would take this up and
designated it Bildung; the most proportional unfolding of an individual’s inner
forces. The provocation of the Kantian Copernican turn, as Alfred Schäfer pointed-
out, consists of putting the individual at the center-stage of the social world: from
the subject emanates all social order. But if this is the case, the subject and the
social order founded by him are forever and irretrievably severed. The recognised
and recognisable world, exist only in our perception, not for itself. The objects of
traditional metaphysics are not accessible to the perception and cognitions of man.
The transcendental thinking “I”, is radically undetermined and free and morality is
only possible when this is assumed. However, this turns freedom into a necessary
but unverifiable idea (Schäfer, 2009, p. 142).
This central thought may be further illustrated when contrasting the current
inflated use of Bildung/education with the original use (Ibid., pp. 185ff), where
education and formation stood for the tension between individuation and
Vergesellschaftung – Vergesellschaftung in the sense of the old meaning of
enculturation or sociation. Humboldt’s effort to determine the boundaries of the
effectiveness of the state through Ideen zu einem Versuch die Grenzen der
Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen [Spheres and Duties of Government]
(1995)1792 is a good instance to show that the state-mediated relation between
individual and society was not regarded as unproblematic. Bildung in this sense is
directed to reflexively deal with societal imperatives.
However, tension does not mean antagonism as the final aim of the secular and
teleological construction was the higher development of both – the individual and the
collective to which he (the female version was not then in use) belonged. This was
not a German-specific view, as David Lloyd and Paul Thomas (1998) have shown,
using Great Britain in the 19th century as an example. The confluence of theories of
the state and theories of culture is directly related to the modern construction of the
national society. This also illustrates that Humboldt was part of an international trend
at the time: the realignment of state, society and individual. This, by necessity,
involved education which in turn evolved into a key institution of the nation state. As

33
S. K. AMOS

stated, the ambivalences or tensions were clearly seen and therefore, classical
pedagogical theory from Rousseau via Humboldt or Schleiermacher claimed a realm
independent of immediate social or economical usefulness; a space that allows the
individual as subject to relate himself, to “the world”, to others and to society.
If it is true that modern educational thought originates with the Enlightenment
and if Enlightenment is related to societal acceleration initiating modernity than
more attention needs to be paid to education and societal time relations, On the one
hand, acceleration called for more effectivity and efficiency in adapting the child’s
dispositions to the requirements of society. This is in line with the emergence of
modern institutions as part of Weber’s rationalization process, central for
stimulating further processes of acceleration. On the other hand, education is the
discipline that periodically questions mechanical adaptations and insists on self-
determination. In this regard, education is about establishing the conditions for
reflexivity and relationality, the search for practices geared to further a reflexive
stance of the subject to the world. In the next significant burst of acceleration which
triggered high modernity, the division in educational thinking, as will be illustrated
with the case of the United States in the early 20th century, became evident.

(HIGH) MODERNITY AND EDUCATION

The early 20th century can be characterised as a phase of even more acute
acceleration than Goethe’s Velociferic age, and the geographical space that came to
epitomise high modernity is the United States of America. In the US, European
Enlightenment took a different turn, as Ralf Dahrendorf’s dictum of the US as
applied Enlightenment reminds us.
An excellent example of the effects of acceleration on education, one not
accidentally referred to by Hartmut Rosa himself, my main reference author when
it comes to the sociology of time, is Henry Adams’ famous treatise, The Education
of Henry Adams, published in 1918, but written mostly in the turbulent crisis-
ridden 1890s. Adams, famous historian, son of one of the most distinguished and
politically influential families of New England, was highly sensitive to the utter
discontinuity of modern times and the obvious inadequacy of past educational
solutions. The following quotation illustrates his view and provides another angle,
a pragmatic notion of education as providing tools and not a well-designed
influencing of dispositions:
As educator, Jean Jacques was, in one respect, easily first; he erected a
monument of warning against the Ego. Since his time, and largely thanks to
him, the Ego has steadily tended to efface itself, and, for purposes of model,
to become a manikin on which the toilet of education is to be draped in order
to show the fit or misfit of the clothes. The object of study is the garment, not
the figure. The tailor adapts the manikin as well as the clothes to his patron’s
wants. The tailor’s object, in this volume, is to fit young men, in universities
or elsewhere, to be men of the world, equipped for any emergency; and the
garment offered to them is meant to show the faults of the patchwork fitted
on their fathers.

34
 COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN LATE MODERNITY

At the utmost, the active-minded young man should ask of his teacher only
mastery of his tools. The young man himself, the subject of education, is a
certain form of energy; the object to be gained is economy of his force; the
training is partly the clearing away of obstacles, partly the direct application
of effort. Once acquired, the tools and models may be thrown away. The
manikin, therefore, has the same value as any other geometrical figure of
three or more dimensions, which is used for the study of relation. For that
purpose it cannot be spared; it is the only measure of motion, of proportion,
of human condition; it must have the air of reality; must be taken for real;
must be treated as though it had life. Who knows? Possibly it had! (Henry
Adams, 1973, my emphasis)
We can now appreciate Henry Adams’ work as an important intellectual document
testifying to the experience of acceleration, the inconsistencies between growing-
up in the atmosphere and the educational concepts of the 18th century, being
himself a child of the 19th, who finds himself confronted with the challenges and
transformations of the 20th, such as those of industrialisation, immigration and
urbanisation. These three familiar terms indicate far-reaching changes in all of the
dimensions indicated by Rosa. There was technological innovation, such as in the
establishment of the assembly line or the manufacturing of automobiles. There
were changes in social relations in connection with previously reliable patterns of
expectation that could no longer orient action – a point well made by Henry Adams
when he emphasised the inadequacy of education to successfully prepare the next
generation. And lastly, there was the acceleration of life’s pace. It was an era
extremely preoccupied with nerves and nervous diseases, in fact, considering the
literature of the time one is under the impression that nervous diseases or disorders
became epidemic. Adams’ intellectual journey from unity – the Virgin and the
Cathedral of Chartres, to multiplicity – the final chapter entitled Nunc Age! – is
contained in his societal diagnosis that the world is multiple and chaotic, but
western thought has insisted on viewing it as ordered and unified.

ACCELERATION, (´HIGH) MODERNITY AND EDUCATION

At the fin de siècle until well into the 20th century, there were two towering
figures dominating American educational thinking: Edward L. Thorndike and John
Dewey. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, educational psychology became
established as a powerful new academic discipline in many countries and
universities. In the US, Edward L. Thorndike was its most famous representative
whose long and productive academic life at Columbia University’s Teachers
College clearly shaped educational thinking. Thorndike’s mechanistic model did
not problematise ethical issues but focused on designing educational interventions
certain to elicit desired outcomes:
...the art of giving and withholding stimuli with the result of producing or
preventing certain responses. In this definition the term stimulus is used
widely for any event which influences a person – for a word spoken to him, a

35
S. K. AMOS

look, a sentence which he reads, the air he breathes, etc., etc. The term
response is used for any reaction made by him – a new thought, a feeling of
interest, a bodily act, any mental or bodily condition resulting from the
stimulus. The aim of the teacher is to produce desirable and prevent
undesirable changes in human beings by producing and preventing certain
responses (Thorndike, 2001, p. 7).
Thorndike clearly envisioned a well-adapted individual through educational
technological intervention and in the long-run, as Condliffe Lageman (1999) put it:
Thorndike “won”, and Dewey “lost”. This verdict is clearly borne-out by today’s
emphasis on educational psychology that is more advanced and sophisticated but
clearly reminiscent of Thorndike’s approach.

DECELERATION, (HIGH) MODERNITY, AND EDUCATION

Progressive Education, with which Dewey is strongly identified, is the American

version of an international movement that would probably not have occurred if it
was not by the vast social changes of high modernity. Dewey clearly was not anti-
modernist. He spent his long and productive life mainly in cities – the famous
Laboratory School was in Chicago, and he then went to New York City, the
quintessential high-modern American metropolis; a purely accelerated social space.
However, Dewey’s small-town background and the longing for organic
community deeply influenced his pedagogical visions. Dewey’s “school as
embryonic community” is strongly reminiscent of town meetings as the
prototypical act of democratic citizenship. There are thus strong decelerating
elements in his educational thinking.
Dewey is Thorndike’s great opponent although he also shares some common
ground with him, not the least of which is anti-idealism. Intensely familiar with
continental European philosophy through the St. Louis Hegelians, Dewey was acutely
aware of the epistemological problems of this approach and so his answer became, as
we all know, American Pragmatism to which he made a particular contribution.
Equally rejecting idealism and “positivistic” sciences such as the version of
psychology developed by Thorndike, pragmatism found its own answer: the aim of
education is growth. Put even simpler: education is growth. By definition this
precluded mechanistic conceptions of individual insertion into social givens, even
more to the point, it precluded any limited, one-directional forms of development.
That a man may grow in efficiency as a burglar, as a gangster, or as a corrupt
politician, cannot be doubted. But from the standpoint of growth as education
and education as growth the question is whether growth in this direction
promotes or retards growth in general. Does this form of growth create
conditions for further growth, or does it set up conditions that shut off the
person who has grown in this particular direction from the occasions, stimuli,
and opportunities for continuing growth in new directions? What is the effect
of growth in a special direction upon the attitudes and habits which alone
open up avenues for development in other lines? (Dewey, 1938, pp. 28–29)

36
 COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN LATE MODERNITY

Comparing the Positions

It is rather striking that Dewey draws on organic and Thorndike on mechanical
metaphors. Adams’ are heavily leaning on physics. It is however, a modern version
of physics he is fascinated by and relies on in order to apply it to social
phenomena. He was especially intrigued by the second law of Thermodynamics,
the Law on Enthropy.
Dewey was s convinced that in order to further social betterment and individual
wellbeing, the educational process had to be conducive to growth, and this growth
had to be based on experience in its broadest sense. Growth by definition is
decelerating whereas Thorndike’s vision was more conducive to directly furthering
the adaptive individual processes necessary to deal with the accelerated social
conditions.
It would take further and in-depths studies and probably can never be answered
conclusively, but I am inclined to think that Adams, would have taken educational
thought in a different direction had he been inclined to develop a theory of
education as he tried to develop a theory of history. Adams thinks much for in
terms of relations, of momentum, force, inertia of directing and dispersing energy
and from there would have taken the problem into a different direction. The
opening of spaces, of providing opportunities that is often emphasized in
educational thinking from Rousseau onwards was appreciated by him (see the
chapter on Harvard College), but in terms of preparing the next generation for any
emergency would have been dismissed as insufficient.

HYPER ACCELERATION, LATE MODERNITY, AND EDUCATION

When applying Rosa’s distinctions to our current situation, there is no doubt that
the present state of society is characterised by yet another burst of acceleration;
thinking about technological innovation, the information and communication
revolution immediately come to mind. This change is so far-reaching that terms
like digital immigrants and digital natives have been coined to indicate how these
innovations affect individual life and social relations. However, although social
relations are deeply affected by technological innovations, they cannot be reduced
to them. The transformations are much more encompassing and many examples
may be given to demonstrate that formerly reliable patterns of expectation are
dissolving. The transformation of work relations is an excellent instance. High
modernity was characterised by a certain mode of production, also known as
Fordism, which was a specific work regime that was based on a “normal
biography”. Michel Foucault has brilliantly analysed this “disciplinary” society,
where the individual predictably moved from one interned space of enclosure to
the next one: from family to school, from school to the factory, and so on.
The modern welfare state reinforced decelerating components of this regime by
introducing working regulations that divided the workforce’s life into productive
and recreational periods, such as after-work hours, holidays, vacations, and
retirement. The whole structure was backed by the efforts of trade unions to ever-
increase job security, which in turn facilitated long-term life plans, the founding of

37
S. K. AMOS

families, the purchase of real estate to make permanent homes, etc. Today, these
reliable patterns of expectation can no longer be taken as typical or standard. Gilles
Deleuze (1990) has described the spaces of enclosure typical of the disciplinary
society as moulds and as distinct castings, whereas the current type of society – the
control society – is characterised by unbounded modulations: the endless flexibility
of lifelong learning replaces the once-in-a-lifetime acquisition of educational
certificates. With regards to the acceleration of life’s pace, equally far-reaching
changes can be detected: the number, variety and frequency of actions increases
with more tasks in ever-shorter periods of time. Via e-mail and smartphones,
we are permanently accessible for professional and private communication.
The boundary between the two, once strictly separated realms, has become
permeable again, but in a different sense than in pre-modern times: whereas
formerly, there was no distinction between work (public) and private life, today
private life tends to get collapsed into work life, success and in-time delivery being
two late modern yardsticks to measure the worth of the individual. The pace of
acceleration may be assessed by looking at the tremendous increase of news
events; the ticker is the appropriate form to keep-up with the rate and pace.
It is clear that these transformations have significant implications for education,
there is a definite expectation to adjust and adapt the psychic structures and
dispositions of the next generation to the “hyper” acceleration of late modernity.
The first noteworthy observation when studying the manifestation of these
expectations is a close relationship between multi-level educational policy and
evidence-based educational research.
One of the orienting key-concepts is human capital development. This in turn
translates into educational policies such as those in early childhood education that
place a strong emphasis on the expertise of professional early childhood workers
who must observe, document and develop a child’s capacities as well as cooperate
closely with parents and professionals in other areas such as in medicine and social
work, in order not to lose precious resource. It also translates into a new relation
between early childhood education and school. Transitions from kindergarten to
school are more flexible and less rigid. The school changes too. There are
significant organisational alterations at a time when traditional bureaucratic
regulation is no longer viewed as the epitome of modernity. As comparative
research in a European context shows, two types of regulation may be identified:
regulation by the evaluative state, characteristic of the conservative European
welfare states, and regulation by quasi-markets, characteristic of the liberal welfare
regimes (Maroy, 2004). Key terms of international school reform include:
outcome-based performance, educational standards and tests, educational
contracts, school autonomy, school choice, etc. These regulatory shifts are
assumed to influence the dispositions of learners in a desirable direction.
The institutions of higher education are attributed a central role by European
educational policy in turning Europe into the economic global powerhouse, which
defines a common education space as the backbone of the future knowledge-based
economy. Modularisation, shortening of study cycles and a greater emphasis on
application through the definition of competencies are the hallmarks of this

38
 COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN LATE MODERNITY

ambitious vision. Adult education is then called upon to assist in maintaining an

individual’s employability throughout life or preparing him for useful voluntary
activities. All of these pedagogical interventions have to be purposefully
coordinated, synchronising an ever-greater array of actors: parents, voluntary
workers, educational, medical, psychological professionals, representatives of
business and trade as well as religious leaders, to name only a few.
Standardisation, synchronisation and coordination of educational processes are
thus geared towards successful insertion of individuals into the knowledge-based
economy.
The term knowledge and knowledge-based economy is worth being looked at
more closely, since it appears such an all-encompassing term.
When activities such as the World Bank’s K4D (Knowledge for Development)
with its concomitant KAM (Knowledge Assessment Methodology) are considered,
it is rather clear that the “knowledge” referred to privileges its technical and
scientific forms (Robertson, 2008). However, one also finds creativity, one of the
key terms of our conference, mentioned in this context. Recently, this has received
much attention in the educational debate (cf. Marginson, 2009; Araya & Peters,
2010). The reason for this is simply that the creative industries, according to
certain theories, are one particular facet of the knowledge economy. The concept
itself has many forerunners, such as Peter Drucker and Fritz Machlup (knowledge
workers, 1960s), Daniel Bell (post-industrial economy, 1970s) or Robert Reich
(symbolic analysts). The author who synthesises Peter Drucker’s, Fritz Machlup’s,
Daniel Bell’s and Robert Reich’s approaches and popularised the concept of the
creative industries is Richard Florida and his book, The Rise of the Creative Class
(2004).
Creativity: the ability to create meaningful new forms. Creativity is
multidimensional and comes in many mutually reinforcing forms. It is
pervasive and ongoing. We constantly revise and enhance every product,
process and activity imaginable, and fit them together in new ways.
Technological and economic creativity are nurtured by and interact with
artistic and cultural creativity (Florida, 2004, p. 5).
There is a clear link between the activities of the creative sector and place. Florida
made a very strong point that the creative industries do not settle just anywhere but
are attracted to certain areas which is why Florida considers place, in particular the
diverse and pluralistic city, as the central contemporary organising unit. In a very
sad sense, the disaster of this year’s love parade in Duisburg might be viewed also
in this context, i.e. in the context of multi-level regional and urban governance
relations aiming at the transformation of deprived cities into thriving centres of the
creative industries.
Commentators on the creative industry have observed that the vagueness of the
concept represents an attempt to find a term for a rather multitudinous
conglomerate comprised of evolving urban structures, visions of urban planners,
real estate speculation, last resorts of municipal policies and academic marketing
(Olma, 2009, p. 103). Economically speaking, a large segment of the creative

39
S. K. AMOS

industry, such as arts and fashion, unless very high-end, is rather insignificant
consisting of low-capital, high-risk, small enterprises. The economically relevant
part of the creative industries, the part immediately linked to the knowledge
economy, concerns research and the patenting of intellectual property. One of
the blunt critics of the knowledge society with the name of Brian Holmes, not to be
confused with “our” Brian Holmes, the comparativist, has made his point by using
South Carolina’s Research Triangle Park, which includes the universities of Chapel
Hill, Durham and Raleigh, as an example (2007). The complex has become famous
for creating the precedent of the private patenting of public intellectual property,
which in turn is related to technology transfer as a means to augmenting
universities’ funding and facilitating public-private collaborations. As Michael
Peters has meticulously traced in his article on the open education and open
science movements, even this broadly democratic open access movement has
strong economic underpinnings: in an accelerated world, the cumbersome and
time-consuming institutional processes have to be avoided in order not to waste
time and immediately bring scientists together for competitive advantages in
project bidding.
To do all this has required a change in the institutional nexus that guides the
activity of scientists, but also a deep-running change in what Michel Foucault
theorised as “governmentality”, i.e. the underlying logic or common sense that
structures individual modes of self-evaluation, public expression, relation to others
and relation to the future. A number of authors, e.g. Nigel Thrift (2005), deal with
the policy-induced realignment of subjective and institutional structures.
Nearly all western states nowadays subscribe to a rhetoric and metric of
modernisation based on fashioning a citizen who can become an actively
seeking factor of production… And that rhetoric, in turn, has hinged on a few
key management tropes – globalisation, knowledge, learning, network,
flexibility, information technology, urgency – which are meant to come
together in a new kind of self-willed subject whose industry will boost the
powers of the state to compete (Thrift, 2005, p. 89).
Speed and network-like structures exemplify two concepts signifying appropriation
strategies of accelerated societal conditions. Hardly surprising, the self-directed
learner assimilating information on-demand and transforming it into custom-made
knowledge corresponds well with this model.
In neo-institutionalist terminology, one could speak of the rise of new myths or
metanarratives that are taken as objective descriptions of our social world, not least
because of the various policy levels and agencies, including the expert systems,
that are mutually reinforcing. A special emphasis should be laid on the cooperation
and exchange relations between the major international organisations, the EU, the
OECD, UNESCO and the WTO, as well as with political actors on other levels,
and the considerable influence of the nation states. Epistemic communities and
institutional structures create new forms of educational governance in the political
science sense of the term, based on specific rationales, which are almost without
alternatives.

40
 COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN LATE MODERNITY

DECELERATION, LATE MODERNITY, AND EDUCATION

Given the acuteness of current societal acceleration which deeply impacts social-
spatial relations resulting in intensified cooperations and competitions, the
individual and collective future seems to hinge upon the ability to keep pace and
not fall behind. In this setting, education is reconfigured to weave the previously
separate strands together: outcome and process, educational intentions and a
focus on the learner. Against this all-encompassing “life long” and “life wide”
well-orchestrated and synchronised vision of education, it is difficult to tie such
relations to traditional pedagogical predicates such as the responsibility to
advocate the right of the child toward the institution on the part of the teacher –
which formerly constituted the pedagogical reality – as a special realm outside of
the empirical world. This is impossible to ever fully realise, yet is important to
bring into the discussion. The new metanarrative of education would of course
argue that this is no longer necessary because the tension between student and
institution is a matter of the past; we are now designing learning situations in
such a way that previous conflicts no longer occur. This is yet to be proven.
What we already do know however, is that high-stakes testing and universally-
designed education acts such as the American “No Child Left Behind Act of
2001”, have, so far, not been able to evidence themselves as being the tools that
provide educational inclusion for all children – as the mentioned act’s title would
suggest. High-stakes testing, to which the US law is tied, leads, unsurprisingly,
to increased rates of inclusion of weak learners. At least partly, these predictable
but unforeseen effects are related to the fact that most of the evidence-based
designers of policy do not have organisational theory as their forte. This points to
a certain narrowness of the approach which, given the complexity of the object,
is not irrelevant. However, on a more fundamental level, a permanent critique of
our educational practices is the precondition for making relevant advances. Very
simply put: if there is high-stakes testing, there should also be a coalition for
essential schools. The relations between the various “agonistic” forces in our
field contribute to keeping it dynamic and intellectually vibrant. There is also
another reason why a single focus on adapting may not be as effective as desired.
Let me make the point by introducing the term “shifting baselines” – a term
coined by the social psychologist, Harald Welzer (2008). Welzer’s point is that
human perception changes as his social and natural environment changes,
depriving him of important points of reference. As self-evident as this seems, the
consequences are grave. If climate change, for example, requires behaviour
modification, how is this to occur if sensual experiences do not have any
references with which to measure the extent of the phenomenon? Shifting
baselines is a concept to explain the contradictions between acceleration and
sustainability, which in education translates into maintain the chain of
generations. It also could be interpreted to mean that a focus too narrowly set on
immediate problem solving, on strictly defined competence areas, defines the
“economy of the human force”, to use Henry Adam’s words rather narrowly and
forces multiplicity into a false unity.

41
S. K. AMOS

CONCLUSION

So, to again quote the organisers: “Thus in the contemporary rush to reform, there
is a massive amount of work for us to do”. Yes, unquestionably. As some
colleagues and I propose to investigate in a comparative project: we are “invited”
to reconstruct education as a technical science. In a very tangible sense, having
especially our young colleagues in view, this trend offers attractive perspectives
for a thriving comparative education. Indeed, current societal conditions not only
undergo a new phase of acceleration but also lose the bufferings provided by the
nation state. Globalisation and internationalisation fluidify social relations. Against
this background of modernising education, the discipline of education may reshape
itself as a technical science, where the same standards of quality of research and
publication are applied as in the natural sciences.
What is lost, however, and here, according to Alfred Schäfer, lies the specificity
of those sciences concerned with the human world, is the reminder of the break and
rupture in the foundations of social relations. A certain confluence between this
view of education as an academic discipline and discussions in political science are
evident in the positions by Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau, who have the same
concern with the political, referring to it as an unresolvable problematic, a place of
“want” or “Mangel” [“lack”], of a fundamental constitutional problematics of the
pedagogical and the political, as well as the unfoundedness of social, institutional
processes. Without maintaining the agonistic relations constitutive of our
discipline, redesigned, technised, accelerated education might soon turn over into
idle running.

NOTES
1
Of course, the concept of the person is not an Enlightenment creation. Rather, it has a long history in
at least four disciplines: philosophy, theology, law and education. However, it may be argued that
Enlightenment thinking tended to collapse person and human being with ramifications that can be
followed through to today’s human rights practice.
2
Cf. Simon Marginson (2009, p. 127) taking issue on this point with David Harvey (1990): “Despite
the metaphor of time as the fourth dimension of space, space-time constitutes a heterogeneous
couple.” The reason for this is, according to Marginson, is the differently quality of space and time:
“But what is the materiality in time, in duration itself, that matches the ‘thereness’ that we find
in the physical universe, the thereness that is altered by transport and communications? We can
experience time differently, we can manage time differently, but duration itself is not as plastic in
the material sense” (Ibid., p. 126).
3
Admittedly, this sounds very Eurocentric, very much like “Europe in the world” and not at all like
“the world in Europe”. It needs to be remembered however, that it is one particular dualism
sharpened by Enlightenment that is discussed here. The final section will provide summary and
outlook.
4
The different affiliations are also reflected methodologically in the preferences for quantification
and explanation or in the preference for hermeneutics and reconstruction of meaning
5
Chapter 40 of Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre.

42
 COMPARATIVE EDUCATION IN LATE MODERNITY

REFERENCES

Adams, H. (1973). The education of Henry Adams. Ed. by Ernest Samuels. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Araya, D. & Peters, M. (2010). Knowledge and learning in the age of innovation. New York: Peter
Lang.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Deleuze, G. (1990). Society of control. Retrieved from http://www.nadir.org/nadir/archiv/netzkritik/
societyofcontrol.html
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education: Kappa Delta Pi lecture series. New York: Touchstone.
Esposito, R. (2010). Person und menschliches Leben [Person and a personal life]. Zurich: Diaphanes.
Jessop, B., Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2008). The knowledge-based economy and higher
education in Europe. London: Sense Publications.
Holmes, B. (2007). Disconnecting the dots of the research triangle: Corporatisation, flexibilisation and
militarisation in the creative industries. In G. Lovink & N. Rossiter (Eds.), My Creativity reader: A
critique of the creative industries (pp. 177–190). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
Humboldt, W. von (1995). Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu
bestimmen [Ideas for an attempt to determine the limits of state effectiveness]. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Koch, L. (2009). Norm und Erfahrung: Erinnerung an vergessene Zusammenhänge [The norm and
experience]. In R. Kubac, C. Rabl & E. Sattler (Eds.), Weitermachen? Einsätze theoretischer
Erziehungswissenschaft [Persist? Applications of theoretical educational science] (pp. 78–89).
Wuerzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.
Lageman, E. C. (1999). The plural worlds of educational research. History of Education Quarterly,
209(2), 184–214.
Lawn, M. & Lingard, B. (2002). Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: The
role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 290–306.
Lloyd, D. & Thomas, P. (1998). Culture and the Sate. New York: Routledge
Marginson, S. (2009). Space, mobility and synchrony in the knowledge economy. In S. Marginson,
P. Murphy & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Global creation: Space, mobility and synchrony in the age of the
knowledge economy (pp. 101–200). New York: Peter Lang.
Maroy, C. (2004). Regulation and inequalities in European education systems [New Perspectives for
Learning – Briefing Paper 63, Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Groupe interfacultaire de
recherché sur les systèmes d’éducation et de formation (GIRSEF)]. Retrieved from
http://www.pjb.co.uk/npl/bp63.pdf
Olma, S. (2009). Kritik der Kreativindustrien [Critique of creative industries]. In S. Lange,
A. Kalandides & B. Stöber, Governance der Kreativwirtschaft: Diagnosen und Handlungsoptionen
[Governance of the creative economy: Diagnoses and courses of action] (pp. 108–120). Bielefeld:
Transcript.
Paulston, R. G. (1993). Mapping discourse in comparative education texts. Compare, 23(2), 101–114.
Paulston, R. G. (1999). Mapping comparative education after postmodernity. Comparative Education
Review, 43(4), 438–463.
Paulston, R. G. (Ed.). (1996). Social cartography: Mapping ways of seeing social and educational
change. New York: Garland.
Peters, M. A. (2009). Open education and the open science economy. In T. Popkewitz & F. Rizvi
(Eds.), Globalization and the study of education: The 108th yearbook of the national society for the
study of education (Vol. II) (pp. 203–225). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Popkewitz, T. (2007). Cosmopolitanism and the age of school reform: Science, education and making
society by making the child. London: Routledge.

43
S. K. AMOS

Rizvi, F. (2009). Global mobility and the challenge of educational research and policy. In T. Popkewitz &
F. Rizvi (Eds.), Globalization and the study of education: The 108th yearbook of the national society
for the study of education (Vol. II) (pp. 268–289). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Robertson, S. L. (2008). ‘Producing’ knowledge economies: The World Bank, the KAM, education and
development. Centre for Globalisation, Education and Societies, University of Bristol. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.bris.ac.uk/education/people/academicStaff/edslr/publications/19slr/
Rosa, H. (2005). Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstruktur in der Moderne. Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp.
Schäfer, A. (2009). Die Erfindung des Pädagogischen [The invention of education]. Paderborn:
Ferdinand Schöningh.
Shaw, M. (2000). Theory of the global state: Globality as an unfinished revolution. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Thrift, N. (2005). Knowing capitalism. London: Sage.
Thorndike, E. L. (2001). The art of teaching based on psychology. London.
Welzer, H. (2008). Klimakriege: Wofür im 21. Jahrhundert getötet wird [Climate wars: What will be
killed in the 21st century]. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.

S. Karin Amos
Professor of Comparative Education
University of Tübingen

44
 INGA BOSTAD

3. EXISTENTIAL EDUCATION AND THE QUEST

FOR A NEW HUMANISM
How to Create Disturbances and Deeper Thinking in Schools and
Universities?

In this article I will try to connect the ideals of a general education with the
frameworks of our current quantitative society.
In his lecture entitled “What are universities for?” Geoffrey Boulton states that:
The ‘Western’ university based on Newman’s and Humboldt’s principle has
been remarkably successful. It has provided an almost universal model for
higher education. The highly interactive social setting and operational freedom
of such universities has stimulated a creativity that has made them one of the
great entrepreneurial centres of the modern world. They are one of the
fundamental agents that have made that world possible. “(Boulton 2008, p. 3).
So, with that accolade, can we all just sit back and bask in self-satisfaction on
behalf of our institutions…?
Not really, I’m afraid. According to Boulton the challenge for universities now
is to articulate clearly what they stand for, to speak the truth to the authorities, and
to be steadfast in upholding freedom and autonomy as crucial values in order to
safeguard the future of society. The challenge for governments is to recognise and
support these values with appropriate mechanisms of accountability that do not
undermine universities’ effectiveness.
It is the entire university enterprise that is most important – not only the part
that the government is willing to pay for. Human society is not segmentable in the
sense that governments often want to support specific policy actions. It is a
complex, interacting whole, which needs to be understood as a whole. But, what
exactly is the core of the university’s ‘offering’ or ‘utility’ to society? It is, first of
all, its students, according to Boulton; the minds of students, their general
education, their ability to be analytical, ethical and critical.
Generation by generation universities serve to make students think. They do
so by feeding and training their instinct to understand and seek meaning.
True teaching disturbs complacency. They are taught to question
interpretations that are given to them, to reduce the chaos of information to
the order of an analytical argument and to seek out what is relevant to the
resolution of a problem. (Boulton, 2009, p. 9)

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 45–60.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
I. BOSTAD

Let us stop for a moment and put our ear to the ground. Is it not precisely the
ability to think independently, pose critical questions, commit and participate that
characterises young people in Norway and Europe today? Or, is much of our
current education policy also based on double standards? On the one hand,
education claims to promote inclusion and respect for the individual, investigative
pedagogy and the ability to pose critical questions and make ethical choices, while,
on the other hand, we are seeing more quantitative exams, final evaluations and
focus on pre-defined learning outcomes linked to materialistic values – produced in
society and in the society of the university.
Many children and young people are excited about the future and have high
hopes – justifiably so. Children growing-up here, in Sweden and neighbouring
Norway, are exceptionally privileged: they get to grow-up in one of the richest
countries in the world, with access to vast tracts of protected countryside, excellent
public hospitals and schools, with theatres, cinemas, swimming pools and football
stadiums, ski trails, beaches and bike paths. Young people have the opportunity to
do almost anything they want. So then it is up to all of us to show them in actions
and words that there is more to the good life: being happy with one’s lot and
experiencing joy outweighs owning many things, having a high consumption (of
material goods) and always putting ourselves first. This requires some moral
disturbances!
But what kind of freedom and what choices are we actually talking about?

THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM1

In broad terms, we can divide concepts of freedom into two main classes: negative
freedom – the state of being free from oppression and coercion – and positive
freedom – being free to use our talent, realise our wishes and satisfy our needs,
having the freedom to act and live as we see fit. It is also customary to distinguish
between freedom that can be measured or verified, for example, in that children are
involved in decision-making in their education, or that a society has freedom of the
press and less directly quantifiable forms of freedom, such as freedom of thought
or simply, the feeling of freedom.
The word ‘free’ or ‘freedom’ is also used differently in everyday speech and in
political and philosophical arguments. Colloquially, we talk of being ‘as free as a
bird’, or one might hear someone saying that a boy has left home and is ‘enjoying
his freedom’. We say that research should be ‘free’ – free basic research, which is
purpose-free and curiosity-driven. In philosophy, by contrast, it is common to
formulate a general and idealistic definition of freedom or liberty as the right to
perform any act according to one’s own ‘free will’.
In this context we must also search for the correspondence between freedom
and education, or freedom in education: what amount of the learning methods
and curriculum ought to be selective and decided by the school, the individual
teacher or the pupil, and how much should be compulsory and part of a common
culture and a historical-social canon? How should the rights of every child
being guided into his or her cultural heritage be balanced against the right and

46
 EXISTENTIAL EDUCATION AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW HUMANISM

freedom of parents to raise their child according to their own religion and faith?
And how should the protection of an individual’s right to intellectual and
spiritual freedom be balanced against the recognition that values may be
expressed and reasoned for differently in different religions and belief systems?
Answers to these questions are dependent upon the ability of schools and
universities to stimulate and create autonomous individuals – who think
independently, pose critical questions, make ethical choices and participate in
social debates.
Within the existentialist tradition, an individual is ‘condemned to freedom’,
in the sense that one can and must choose how to live out one’s life. That we are
all born (unique) individuals is an indisputable fact, but it is not given how we
should fill this existence. No essence or meaning is given to the individual;
rather, each individual must accept that he or she will have to make fundamental
choices throughout an entire lifetime. One must consider issues such as ‘How
will I be remembered?’ and ‘What should I do with my life?’ Of course there
are other theories and beliefs about existence and freedom that regard humans
as, first and foremost, ethically obliged or destined to live in very specific ways,
or adhere to predefined rules and rituals, as for example, in Judaism and
Hinduism.
By contrast, the existentialist view is rather harsh. On one level, we can say
that we are all dependent on our surroundings and each other and that we are in
constant relationships with one another, yet we can all also choose how we relate
to life, our surroundings, make use of qualities we were born with and best
navigate through the situations we were born into. However, the road is long
from an ideal world of equal subjects and a real experience of exclusion in
everyday life, as expressed in a great deal of scientific literature based on a
phenomenological-existential approach to interpersonal relationships. Some form
of theory snobbism or abstractionism can arise and in fact, create a sense of
alienation in the people who feel excluded – be it because of their religion,
gender or disability – rather than nurture the relevant recognition. Physical
disabilities and the unequal distribution of power or representation in society
become obvious. However, it may be fruitful to consider freedom in an
existentialist tradition primarily as the freedom to differentiate between what is
naturally given and what is socially conditioned, and further, to focus on the
situations that appear to ‘universally’ preclude self-expression, development and
activity.
This kind of dissolution of rigid notions of the natural or innate can feel
liberating: the idea that attributes what we previously assumed were naturally
given or innate, such as gender stereotypes or stereotypical views about disabled
people, are in fact a product of social trends and are therefore subject to change.2
According to de Beauvoir, it is even “immoral “to maintain inequality between the
sexes because it implies that both women and men are untrue to themselves.
Disabled people are too in a situation where both the individual and the people
representing them may experience a rigidity of roles and dependence that in turn,
obstructs their possibilities for self-realisation.

47
I. BOSTAD

FACING ADVERSITY

In Norway it is important to succeed. People strive to be best, or at least one of the

best, in sports, at school, at work, etc. – importance is attached to looking good,
having many friends, etc. And certainly, it is important for one to strive to be as
good as one can. It is important to find one’s own way in life; or that’s what I’ve
always thought. “Sva marga” as the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss used to
say, paraphrasing an ancient Sanskrit phrase. Find your own way. However, this
also means that it is good to also find out what one is not so good at.
We are all unique and different, and therefore we all have different capabilities.
It is my hope that we will get better at finding out what it is that we are good at,
even though we are different. We must get better at recognising this diversity. At
the same time, we all know that we will have to face adversity at some point in
life; sooner or later, that’s simply the way it is. It may appear that some people are
successful in every area of life, but that is simply not the case. It just looks that
way – from the outside. It is also good to have the strength to cope with adversity;
having self-confidence and the self-assurance that one is not worthless if one fails.
It is primarily our job as adults (parents, teachers, supervisors, etc.) to teach our
children that it is essential to be able to cope with adversity and that no one
succeeds all the time; not even us! We must dare to show our children that we too
fail sometimes. Accepting defeat is also a great strength that proves that we know
ourselves.
On encountering adversity, most people find that they are associated ‘with’
others – and that friends and family are the most important asset in life. Many
people extol the virtue of ‘being yourself’ – and indeed, it is true in many ways that
each one of us must find out what we want, how we want to treat others, how we
want to be perceived, and how we want to be remembered. At the same time, this
idea can also be misleading because we can only be ‘ourselves’ in relationships
with, and in relation to others. We are connected to each other and the natural
world around us – for better or for worse – and this is something we cannot
escape... it is a fact. But we also get to know ourselves ‘through’ others; we look at
our reflection in other people’s gazes and measure our own goodness, fairness and
honesty in other people’s words and deeds. In this way, we are constantly learning
new things about ourselves, by opening-up to others – even strangers.
In Antiquity, over 2000 years ago, people had a very different perception of
themselves, as social beings, from what we perceive of ourselves today; and we
can learn something from that period. Then, human beings were regarded as
interwoven with others, where the whole social fabric depended on each
individual part for optimal functionality. People were in a variety of relationships
with others – family members, people from the local community and others who
represented the state – and these relationships played a crucial role when choices
were to be made.
Which values are going to shape the future? And, perhaps more importantly,
which values ought to shape the future? These are major, complex questions, and it
can be quite challenging to answer them here, in these self-realising and
excessively wealthy northern nations. As I have written in other texts,3 Norwegian

48
 EXISTENTIAL EDUCATION AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW HUMANISM

philosophers Hans Skjervheim (1996a, 1996b) and Jon Hellesnes (1992) have
focused on the difference between an educated man (or woman, I would hasten to
add) and a human being with Bildung. Education is formal, something one has or
not, whilst Bildung or general education is something one acts on behalf of.
Education is static and has a given duration, whilst Bildung or general education is
a never-ending process of making knowledge meaningful – a process of reflection
that takes place in each individual. With references to classical philosophy,
Skjervheim demonstrated that philosophy and pedagogy are very closely related.
Not least through Plato’s Academy can one distinguish that the notion of general
education or Bildung emerges related to the concepts of virtue or capability, and
that mastering life is a matter of refining one’s personality or character. But in
Plato’s ideal school, general education does not occur through the passive
acquisition of facts and skills, be they related to science, law or policy, but rather,
acquisition takes place through a unique process of self-knowledge where space is
made for both learned ignorance and the conviction that insight and wisdom can be
nurtured regardless of the capabilities of an individual. Even if the platonic ideal of
education lifts the rational man up as an ideal citizen, Plato’s concepts of general
education may be currently fruitful in as much as they are about being deeply
convinced of a claim, a reason or an argument, as opposed to being persuaded.
A person who is persuaded has accepted facts or skills without reflecting on them,
whereas a person who is deeply convinced understands why and has a considered,
personal, relationship to the knowledge he has acquired. In my own words, a
teacher convinces by showing students the pros and cons, and the arguments
behind the arguments as well as the counterarguments – but not the answers and
not the conclusions. In Skjervheim’s philosophy on education, these platonic ideals
are interpreted and put in a political-ideological framework, where the challenge
lies in decoding and taking into account the power relations in a discourse,
dialogue or conflict – “Who defines whom, and is it the issue or me you are
referring to? Are we in a learning situation where you and I are in a relationship as
two subjects, or am I a pre-defined object for your pre-prepared speech? Is there
room here for us to be two subjects that discuss this matter together with varying
approaches?”
The philosophical dialogue follows a specific pattern intended to lead the
dialogue’s participants to greater clarity and understanding in regards to general
issues related to human life – primarily by uncovering problems, but also by
searching for good, tenable arguments, viewpoints and perspectives. This inquiring
method is open and invites a range of creative and impulsive hypotheses. Ideally,
the dialogue structure has no room for ready-made solutions or predefined
answers; ultimately it rests on the possibility that individuals can draw conclusions
that may well be changed in the next round of discussion. In practice, dialogue is
usually led by a ‘spiritual instructor’, midwife or insightful conversation leader
who ensures that openness is an asset and constantly encourages new quests4 by
disturbing, asking provocative questions and making dialogue participants think in
new terms.
On the basis of this, we can acknowledge that the philosophical dialogue
demonstrates how understanding and new insights can arise through its structure,

49
I. BOSTAD

as we face the challenge of how theories about the art of dialogue can be addressed
or applied. Do we even want to liberate ourselves from false opinions? How much
of our ethical ideals are expressed in our practice as partners in dialogue? Ought
our ethical ideals to be reflected in our practice?
In other words, good dialogue or a good learning situation can teach us
reverence, respect and how to take one other seriously, where taking one other
seriously means striving to understand one other’s way of thinking and listening to
what our dialogue partner says with anticipation and curiosity. This all sounds very
nice, but is it realistic? What about oppressed individuals who are neither
interested in nor have the education or resources to participate in a public
dialogue? And, what about language that serves to maintain class divisions, as well
as culture and religion that distinguish us one from the other and separate us into
social ghettos? How easy is it to ensure reverence and respect then – without
having yet mentioned the difficulties linked to the widely held view that objectivity
provides the greatest insight into a problem?

THE CONTEXT OF EDUCATION

Now let us look at the difference between the art of oratory and the art of dialogue.
As I have stated in my other books (Bostad, 2006 and 2009), in Gorgias (Platon,
1989), this question is considered a political issue. It is linked to general education
and schooling. What should we teach the young? Should we teach them to be
critical and reflective, to think things over, to think for themselves – or not? And
how do we go about teaching these skills? The balance of power in the learning
situation is the critical factor.
On several occasions I have tried to argue for the existence of a camouflaged
concept of knowledge that is currently lurking behind the rhetoric of the
knowledge society. The Janus face of knowledge can be found both in governing
documents such as the Norwegian Government’s Research Reports and the
Ministry of Education and Research’s management-by-objectives perspective, and
in the use of terms such as “learning outcomes” and “learning pressure”. In this
context, it is not only the short-term benefits that appear to be the objective of the
learning, but the very idea of a formal, productive concept of knowledge. It is
rather like the proverbial ‘sausage machine’: with information being fed into the
mind at one end, producing a quantifiable output at the other end, which can be
counted or weighed or evaluated; and, if one increases the pressure at one end (an
awful lot of learning), the process is accentuated and more is produced.
It is in this context that the concept of general education or Bildung as
understanding, reflection and maturation becomes important.
As we also have seen in the recent debate on general education in the US,
intellectuals like Anthony Kronman (2007) and Martha Nussbaum (2010) have
argued for a new non-profit-perspective on higher education – Kronman, with an
existentialistic approach and Nussbaum with a moral quest, and both of them
appealing to humanistic values. Where Kronman proposed that the future of
universities include the provision of an existentialistic room of enquiry and

50
 EXISTENTIAL EDUCATION AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW HUMANISM

wondering to students, and Nussbaum argued for a new humanism where

education must become a moral tool for “the ability to think critically; the ability to
transcend local loyalties and to approach world problems as a “citizen of the
world”, and finally, the ability to imagine sympathetically the predicament of
another person” (2010, p. 7).
Knowledge without values is merely an amalgamation of facts. It is my belief
that within universities, which is my home ground – the reason I was asked to chair
the National Commission on General Education and Liberal Arts in Higher
Education – there should always be reflection on what knowledge is. Or to put it
another way, I believe that issues such as the different forms scientific material can
be used for, how research can be applied and exploited, where the boundaries of
knowledge lie, and how the norms of objectivity should manifest, should occupy a
central position.
The growing materialism we see in Norway and many parts of Europe today,
combined with an increasingly one-sided view of knowledge as a value-neutral
vehicle to meet a social need (such as the development of new vaccines, analysis of
carbon capture techniques, etc.), provides a very poor seedbed for general
education or Bildung. There are many reasons to claim that the dominating values
of the community, parents, politicians, journalists and to a certain extent, the
school system itself, are the fruit of a growing materialism, egocentrism and
consumerism. The values and ideals we see conveyed in the media, advertising,
shop windows, magazines, the Internet and political debates are characterised by a
glorification of materialism and consumption. However, more indirectly, the
debates on schools, education policy and the internationalisation of research and
innovation have served to reinforce an economic-instrumental view of education.5
“Given that economic growth is so eagerly sought by all nations, especially at this
time of crisis, too few questions have been posed about the direction of education,
and, with it, of the world’s democratic societies” (Nussbaum, 2010, p. 6).
The paradox of pedagogy demands a constant consciousness regarding how we
shall prepare the next generation for self-determination, autonomy and critical
reflection. How can we go about guiding, inspiring and handing over these kinds of
skills? In this context, we must first distinguish between the goal and the means.
The goal is to initiate qualified consideration and reflection on fundamental
questions in science, morality and society; the means to this end can be various
forms of underlying values, academic traditions, cultural heritage, knowledge
traditions and canons (of course there is the risk of conservatism in seeing general
education as dependent upon one canon!).
Being generally ‘educated’ is a way of taking control of society in becoming a
skilled, knowledgeable, authoritative person rather than a ‘brick in the wall’ or a
person who merely observes processes. At the same time it is equally naïve to
believe that general education is free, that it sprouts and grows in every individual
as long as we ensure that reflection is open and inquisitive (Bostad, 2009). The
social reproduction of education, not to mention the power relations that exist in all
forms of learning, requires an understanding of existence and a use of the cultural
capital in society for instrumental perspectives on learning pressure and learning
outcomes.

51
I. BOSTAD

General education is contextual, it always takes place at a location and in time, and
therefore we also shape and form one another to a certain extent. Psychoanalysis
claims that events only have meaning when they are interpreted, and similarly in
education, knowledge only has meaning when it is understood and interpreted in a
place, in time. This requires space for development and the pursuit of the essential
truths, feedback, response and dialogue. Nowadays, librarians speak of a new class
divide – between the people who have access to all the information on the Internet
and those who have this access and also have the ability to understand it, interpret
it and contextualise it.
In the words of the Danish philosopher and poet Søren Kierkegaard, the so-
called objective truths, facts that we refer to and repeat, only become subjective
essential truths when we become convinced of them and achieve a deeper
understanding; that is, they play a role for us and affect our lives.
One philosopher I greatly admire is John Rawls. He proposed a thought
experiment that has, since its inception, had a huge impact. “Imagine if you were
going to help decide how society should be”, Rawls asked. “Imagine that you had
to do this behind a veil of ignorance – without knowing anything about your own
personal situation in this society; whether you were a girl or a boy, poor or rich,
white or black, heterosexual or homosexual, etc. How would you wish society to
be? Which institutions should exist? What laws and regulations should there be?
What should be permitted?” We should all perform this thought experiment from
time to time, which is also very reminiscent of the golden rule. We should all also
ask ourselves whether we really treat others as we would like them to treat us.
“Why should we?”, some people might ask. “Why should we think of forsaking
something, making sacrifices or putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes? What
duty do we have to develop society in such a way that it is the best it can be for as
many people as possible?” One answer is: “Because we, ourselves, may one day
end-up confined to a hospital bed, or in a wheelchair, dependent on help from
others, or because one of your nearest and dearest may suddenly lose everything
one day”. What kind of society would we like to wake-up in then? There are a
myriad of other answers to such questions, which I will leave to your own
discovery.

SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-PERCEPTION

According to psychoanalyst, philosopher and poet Julia Kristeva (2010), people do

not have a fixed or unchanging identity, nor is there an ideal identity or a norm that
everyone else can or should strive for; rather it is the case that we are all affected by
our changing surroundings – and that we change with them.6 Thus, our identity –
not only our own self-perception, how we see ourselves and our characteristics, but
also the way we appear to others and how we are able to react, understand and
interpret others – changes throughout our entire lives. We become individuals by
experiencing whom and what we are different from, and we grow by finding role
models and similarities. Finding one’s identity is as much about seeing and

52
 EXISTENTIAL EDUCATION AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW HUMANISM

experiencing what one is not, not aware of or have not experienced, as it is about
identifying with one’s own roots and shared history.
Our existence comes into being as we live, and this entails that we are exposed
and vulnerable to influence. The fact that each and every one of us is an ‘orchestra
in our own right’ means that we not only have the potential to play several
instruments and employ our various skills and capabilities, but also, that we are
contradictory as people and that this contradictoriness is simultaneous and always
present; for example, when we reject the people we love. A (differently abled)
child who has no language is thus able to communicate with others who possess
the ability to use language. This same child is likewise able to speak to his or her
aspirations, longings and dreams, that are unconsciously present to varying
degrees, and waken the silent voices in his or her own consciousness, as would a
fully abled person. Kristeva’s vision of utopia is that vulnerability, which primarily
arises when one faces people with various disabilities – affecting one
subconsciously – is shared by all human beings.
The theory that our identity depends on our being strangers to ourselves can also
be interpreted to mean that it is not possible for us to understand ourselves without
there being something we do not understand because it is subconscious, and
because it lies somewhere in the past or future and cannot be accessed in the
present. Similarly, the theory maintains that we are dependent on seeing ourselves
through others’ eyes – mirroring ourselves in our children’s eyes, in the eyes of
those who are different – to see what we are different from or identical to – “See
that? There? I too want to do that.”, “I have had exactly the same reaction myself,
but I’ve suppressed it…”.
According to the French philosopher and writer Simone de Beauvoir, we shape
our own identity, in that any role we assume, such as motherhood, is created by us,
ourselves, on the basis of the way we live, and as a result, our identity can also be
changed. This means that much of the responsibility for our lives rests upon us and
the ability we have to make use of the various internal resources we have. At the
same time, we must be allowed to make use of our resources and capabilities.
According to de Beauvoir, all people have a drive to assert themselves in
encounters with other human beings, to dominate and decide, and this dominance
can be seen from a historical perspective. Women have been dominated by men
and have allowed themselves to be dominated, both because of their physical
inferiority to man and their reproductive role, but also because of their absence
from wars and conflicts between people and cultures.
As the mother of a multi-handicapped child, I am especially aware of the
dominance in society of the ideal of being strong and successful, and although
parents like me receive plenty of support and assistance, we are still expected to be
able to handle our own problems and not be too much of a burden to the welfare
state. Perhaps I could put it this way: the freedom we have in our country comes
with a large dose of individual responsibility that is imposed, and this
responsibility has made it increasingly difficult for many people to seek the help
they need from social assistance and support services. The solution for many
parents, family members and disabled people has been to focus on the rights aspect
(the individual as an aggrieved party), and/or the victim role. Taking the position

53
I. BOSTAD

of an aggrieved party, complaining about the lack of benefits and support services
or that the services provided are not good enough, etc., meshes well with the
materialistic social democracy as per 2010, where political debate and discourse
are largely characterised by self-centred complaining and dissatisfaction with
society. However, both the victim role and the complainant role are not very
constructive and are extremely one-dimensional. There is no room for the
individual child, the special family and the complex life that is typical of families
with differently abled members. Showing one’s vulnerable sides also means
relinquishing some of one’s autonomy and admitting one’s inadequacy.
There are very good grounds for seeing our era’s quest for success and
achievement as a threat to a new humanism, both because we so easily ignore,
suppress and set aside those who fail to live-up to the expectations and because we
are building-up an ‘orderly society’ where less successful members are necessary
‘mirrors’ for our own success.

OBJECTIVES FOR THE FUTURE

As the chair of the government-appointed ‘committee for new objectives’,

known as the Bostad Committee,7 I spent a year working on the formulation of a
new mandate for schools,8 i.e. education from the first class in primary school
through to the completion of upper-secondary school, including apprenticeships.
In this context, we asked the following questions: “What should the purpose of
education be? What values should be upheld and promoted in modern schools,
and what kind of views of learning, maturation and general education should
teaching be based on? Are there any common values that the whole of society
agrees on?”
First and foremost, however, we had to investigate whether anyone wanted to
argue for a value-neutral objects clause. The discussions in the committee showed
that there was little support for attempts to be value-neutral, which was regarded as
synonymous with indifference. The idea that everything has as little or as much
value is scarcely a useful guideline for the overall objective of education. But
where should we look for common values? Should we find them in Norwegian
history and religion, in Europe’s history of ideas or in Norwegian cultural heritage?
Is there even such a thing as Norwegian cultural heritage? There are certainly
several cultural heritages in Norway. For instance, Sami culture, Læstadian culture
and Romany culture are all part of Norwegian cultural heritage, and yet it is hard to
draw a clear line between national, European and global culture. Picking-out a
single cultural heritage also implies omitting other cultures. The difficulty of trying
to define and delimit a cultural heritage has also been demonstrated in the
problems the European Union has had drawing-up a constitution. Politicians from
secular European traditions, especially in France, have ardently opposed any
reference to Christian traditions. Other states, including Poland and the Vatican,
have fought hard for the inclusion of references to Christianity. In the heat of the
debate, a Polish politician said: “Look around you. If you can see a church tower,
chances are you are in Europe”.9

54
 EXISTENTIAL EDUCATION AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW HUMANISM

It is tempting to conclude that it is both unclear and ambiguous how people

interpret statements about Christian-Norwegian cultural heritage, and throughout
our work regarding educational objectives, the committee discussed this issue with
a variety of religious and ethical organisations in Norway. The idea of cultural
heritage appears to include cultural expressions such as identity, social conventions
and lifestyles, but it also includes traditions and festivals and cultural-historical
elements from literature, music and art, etc. A religious attitude and, more
specifically, elements from the Christian faith or worldview can also be said to be
part of Norwegian cultural heritage. In light of such a broad definition of cultural
heritage, we could say that we all are shaped by cultural heritage, whether we like
it or not.
For me, it became increasingly clear that cultural heritage must be regarded as
dynamic – that it shapes us and that we shape it. The next generation’s cultural
heritage will consist of the things we have been involved in giving content to and
conveying; elements we have picked-out and valued. Last, but not least, my
conclusion was that cultural heritage is, if not cacophonic, then at the very least,
extremely polyphonic.
Some of the feedback the Bostad Committee received stressed that the need to
modernise the objects clause did not necessarily imply that schools should be given
new objectives that do not have any reference to historical and cultural traditions.
At the same time, many people wanted the new objectives not to refer to a specific
religion, but instead, be based on specific core values that are generally agreed
upon in society.
It was against this backdrop that we finally started working on the formulation
of new core values. It was time to get creative about inclusion of references to
religion and beliefs. Once the committee put the existing text aside and began
formulating some concrete core values that were to provide a direction for
schools, which expressed common consensus, the process seemed to start
moving forward of its own accord. Using this kind of starting point, we could
allow the individual members of society to justify values in their own way – on
the basis of their own religion and beliefs. It was essential that schools should be
based on respect for human dignity, intellectual freedom, charity, equality and
solidarity.
At the same time, we wanted to emphasise that the principles of religious
freedom and non-discrimination, as laid down in human rights conventions, are
absolutely fundamental to the objectives of education. Religious and philosophical
freedom are protected by several human rights conventions that also ensure the
right to teaching and education without preaching and indoctrination. We also
wanted to signal that some values, such as human dignity, equality and autonomy
are of such lasting nature that they should be legislatively protected as school
objectives – based on human rights.
Throughout our work, we considered a variety of alternative formulations
along the lines of education being a cultural carrier that builds on (as opposed to
is entrenched in) human rights, and that it communicate and develop our
cultural heritage, which has its roots in Christianity, humanism, democracy and
scientific thinking. This formulation would also allow for religious and

55
I. BOSTAD

philosophical diversity and ensure a special focus on the dynamic nature of

cultural heritage, but at the same time, the formulation was explicit in stating
that schooling, as a whole, should be based on a cultural heritage that has roots
in Christianity.
In our final proposal for a new objects clause, we chose instead to emphasise
that the purpose of education is to recognise and demonstrate that in our national
history and culture, these basic values are expressed in the Christian and
humanistic traditions. It is thus not the tradition or the religion as such that dictates
the underlying values in Norwegian schools; rather, it provides a framework of
reference for the emergence of some shared human values that cut across different
religions and beliefs – such as security, equality, equal opportunities, community
and democracy, and respect for co-determination, freedom of thought and freedom
of religion. And not least, the committee was in broad agreement on the value of
ecological knowledge, enabling children and young people to manage the
environment and natural resources wisely and with insight. An important factor in
our ability to tackle the major environmental challenges relates to the upbringing
and education that children and young people are receiving today and will received
in the future. This fact places a heavy burden on schools in providing students with
the opportunity to choose a truly eco-friendly life and providing them with the
understanding of and insight into nature, which will be necessary for our common
future.

VISIBLE VALUES AND THE INVISIBILITY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS

Do we, who live in this country, really want schools that are inclusive or are we
just going through the motions? And what does it mean to include children and
young people? Striking a balance between being willing to defend some
fundamental values about which there may be some controversy in society and
taking individuals seriously as part of our culture and way of life are key issues we
must all consider. Within this context, it is important to regard values as processes,
rather than static features. Values for the future are primarily expressed in our
actions and expressions from experiences – not in empty slogans and worn-out
clichés…
Modernising the objectives entails that one takes the challenges and
opportunities that a modern society is confronted with seriously in terms of
plurality and diversity – however, this also requires a different perspective on
knowledge and competency in society. In order to ensure that kindergarten
objectives, education and training reflect the diversity of modern Norwegian
society, we must combine respect for differing viewpoints as well as dedicate
towards willingness to compromise. It is crucial to recognise that there are many
different perspectives in relation to values, identity, culture, beliefs and personal
philosophy – that is, simply put, a reflection of society, and the reason that the
Bostad Committee welcomed and ensured a representation of diverse viewpoints
among its members. At the same time, it is necessary to recognise the importance,
in a pluralistic community, of everyone compromising a little without losing the

56
 EXISTENTIAL EDUCATION AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW HUMANISM

essential aspects of themselves in the process. When people who hold different
religious, ethical, cultural, and political perspectives live together, the ability,
courage, and will to enter into constructive dialogue is essential – even, or
especially, where difficult and emotionally charged questions concerning values
and religion, or culture and identity, are concerned.
As I see it, double standards are inherent in the fact that the obvious values are
all related to increasing consumption, unilateral cost-benefit thinking, selfishness,
and maintaining the huge gap between theory and practice – or, to put it another
way, knowledge is communicated and interpreted as information without being
related to values and understanding. This is partly concealed in the rhetoric about
the knowledge society, with its emphasis on schools and learning, and all the fine-
sounding words about the value of inclusive schools.
In the work on the new objects clause, I frequently heard many people express
a desire for a school that could offer students an existential learning space.
Regardless of religious and philosophical standpoint, they argued that issues of
an existential nature be emphasised, including the meaning of life, faith and
doubt, etc., and that these issues should not be banished to the private sphere, but
rather, they should be considered and discussed as a part of the process of
acquiring knowledge at school. Of course, this idea is music to a philosopher’s
ears…
A while ago I was interviewed by the Norwegian newspaper Morgenbladet. One
of the questions the journalist asked was: “If you could know the answer to any
one question, what would it be?” I thought for a while and then answered:
“Whether there is a moral world order. In other words, is it the case that there is an
order intrinsic to the world that developed throughout the course of history and
resides within every state of every object – and, is it moral, just and good? This is a
question no one ‘knows’ the answer to; however, many think they know the answer
and are convinced, to varying degrees. Such a question is also one to which all the
world’s religions have an answer to. We can choose between them for the one we
find most appealing.
As a philosopher, I not only prefer questions to answers; I am convinced that the
essence of teaching true knowledge is primarily about framing the relevant and
essential questions and holding back the answers – even though one impatiently
wants to answer. The essence is that it is important to identify the questions that
matter to us – and always ask new questions, see new problems, explore new
possible routes. The answers that remain, even after we have tried to disprove them
by asking new questions, are often the best answers – for the time being, at any
rate...
In case you are wondering, the second question Morgenbladet asked me was:
“If you could meet anyone, dead or alive, who would it be?” I answered, “The first
female Pope”. And, the reporter’s last question was: “How do you want to be
remembered?” – the answer to which I will leave blank, for you to think about. It’s
a good question and a good place for me to stop.
Thank you for your attention.

57
I. BOSTAD

NOTES
1
The following section is based on my article “Annerledeshet og frihet” [Difference and freedom]
(Bostad, 2010).
2
Class stereotypes can also be mentioned here, but as recent research literature has shown (from
Sandra Harding to Evelyn Fox Keller, Sheila Ben Habib and Linda Alcoff), the significant
stereotypes are all linked to gender.
3
For instance, chapter 6 in Dialog og danning [Dialogue and education] (Bostad & Tove, 2006), and
“Dannelse med tellekanter” [Bildung with count edges] (Bostad, 2009).
4
See Dialog og danning [Dialogue and education] in the book, with the same title as the chapter
referred to (Bostad & Tove, 2006). The following section is based on this chapter.
5
See “De synlige verdier og den usynlige dobbeltmoral – hva skal være opplæringens formål for
framtida?” [Visible values and the invisibility of double standards – What should be the objectives
for the future of education?] (Bostad, 2008) in Verdier, edited by Åse Røthning and Oddbjørn
Leirvik.
6
This section is based on my article “Annerledeshet og frihet” [Difference and freedom] in
Annerledeshet – sårbarhetens språk og politikk [Difference – The language and policy of
vulnerability] (Bostad, 2010), edited by Julia Kristeva and Eivind Engebretsen.
7
Official Norwegian Report (NOU 2007:6, 2007) entitled, Objectives for the future. Objectives for
kindergartens and education and training.Report from the Bostad Committee appointed by Royal
Decree on 2 June 2006, issued to the Ministry of Education and Research on 8 June 2007.
Chair:Inga Bostad.
8
The mandate also included kindergartens and the wish to ensure a coherent approach to underlying
values and education from an early age, through to the end of upper-secondary education. Here,
however, I am concentrating on schools, i.e. the 13-year schooling from primary school, through to
lower-secondary school and to the completion of upper-secondary school.
9
From an editorial in Dagens næringsliv, 9–10 June 2007.

REFERENCES

Bostad, I. (2006). Filosofi som metode [Philosophy as a method]. In I. Bostad & T. Pettersen (Eds.),
Dialog og danning [Dialogue and education] (pp. 13–28). Oslo: Spartacus.
Bostad, I. & Pettersen, T. (Eds.). (2006). Dialog og danning [Dialogue and education]. Oslo: Spartacus.
Bostad, I. (2008). Synlige verdier og usynlig dobbeltmoral – Hva skal være opplæringens formål for
framtida [Visible values and the invisibility of double standards – What should be the objectives for
the future of education?]. In Å. Røthing & O. Leirvik (Eds.), Verdier [Values] (pp. 139–159). Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Bostad, I. (2009). Dannelse med tellekanter [Bildung with count edges]. Samtiden, 2, 118–126.
Bostad, I. (2010). Annerledeshet og frihet [Difference and freedom]. In J. Kristeva & E. Engebretsen
(Eds.), Annerledeshet – Sårbarhetens språk og politikk [Difference – The language and policy of
vulnerability] (pp. 212–234). Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.
Boulton, G. (2009, March). What are universities for? Facing global challenges: European strategies
for Europe’s universities. Lecture conducted at the European University Association’s 2009
Convention, Prague, Czech Republic, based on an article with Colin Lucas printed for Lehru,
September 2008.
NOU 2007:6. (2007). Formål for framtida, formål for barnehagen og opplæringen, utredning fra
Bostadutvalget oppnevnt ved kongelig reolusjon 2. juni 2006, avgitt Kunnskapsdepartementet 8. juni
2007 [Objectives for the future. Objectives for kindergartens and education and training. Report
from the Bostad Committee appointed by Royal Decree on 2 June 2006, issued to the Ministry of
Education and Research on 8 June 2007]. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research.

58
 EXISTENTIAL EDUCATION AND THE QUEST FOR A NEW HUMANISM

Hellesnes, J. (1992). Ein utdana mann og eit dana menneske [An educated man and a human being with
Bildung]. In Dale, E. L. (Ed.), Pedagogisk filosofi [Educational philosophy] (pp. 79–104). Oslo: Ad
Notam Gyldedal.
Kristeva, J. & Engebretsen, E. (Eds.). (2010). Anderledeshet og sårbarhetens politick [The politics of
difference and vulnerabilities]. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.
Kronman, A.T. (2007). Education’s end – Why our colleges and universities have given up the meaning
of life. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Platon. (1989). Gorgias. Oslo: Samlaget.
Skjervheim, H. (1996a). Deltakar og tilskodar [Participant and spectator]. In H. Skjervheim, Deltakar
og tilskodar og andre essays [Participant and spectator and other essays] (pp. 71–88). Oslo:
Aschehoug forlag.
Skjervheim, H. (1996b). Eit grunnproblem i pedagogisk filosofi [A basic problem in educational
philosophy]. In H. Skjervheim Deltakar og tilskodar og andre essays [Participant and spectator and
other essays]. (pp. 71–88). Oslo: Aschehoug forlag.

Inga Bostad
Associate Professor in Philosophy
University of Oslo

59
 ULF P. LUNDGREN

4. EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

The Swedish Case

Education and the welfare society is, in Sweden’s case, a story about the 20th
century. Indeed, it is symbolic that in 1900, Swedish educationalist and author
Ellen Key published her famous book, The Century of Childhood. It earmarked our
entry into a new era and the beginnings of a new mentality – modernity; a
Copernican turn. The centre moved. From the classical curriculum to a pragmatic
curriculum of knowledge as a tool in a new world, the child was placed in the
centre. Whether or not the century became one of childhood can be questioned;
however, we can agree that it became a century of schooling.

THE FORMING OF MODERN EDUCATION – A PARADIGM SHIFT

Outside the main University building in Uppsala, there stands a statue of Erik
Gustaf Geijer (1783–1847). He was Chair of the History Department from 1817,
and from 1824, he was also member of the Swedish Academy (founded as an
independent institute in 1786 in order to promote the Swedish language and
Swedish literature. Since 1901, the Academy has awarded the Nobel Prize in
Literature). At the start of the century, Geijer had an important position in
influencing Sweden’s academic and intellectual life.
In 1825, a committee was given the task of forming a structure for the
educational system. Its official name was “The Teaching Committee of 1825”, yet
its popular name was “The Genius Committee”, as it consisted of the most
prominent and well-known intellectuals, among whom were the chemist Berzelius
and the above-mentioned Geijer. The Crown Prince, later King Oscar I, was the
Chairman, which indicates the status and importance of the committee.
By the mid-19th century, two perspectives dominated discussions on what
constitutes “Bildung”, or genuine formation. One claimed the importance of a
classical formation. Within this perspective, learning Latin was central to the
curriculum as were fostering and sharpening the intellect. The other perspective
argued for modernising the curriculum by embracing the natural sciences and
modern languages.
For Geijer, a classical education was essential: “It is,” he wrote, “not important
what he (the young man) learns, as long as he learns, as long as his mind is
sharpened and fostered in the school of academia” (Aquilonius, 1942, p. 26, own
translation). Society, he argued, was divided into two classes. The educated class

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 61–76.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
U. P. LUNDGREN

cherished society’s basic duties took care of laws and morals, academic sciences
and art. For members of this class, higher education was important. The other class
included the non-educated folk working in production; farming, crafting and
working in the business sectors. For members of this class, practical-oriented
education combined with Christian teachings given by the Church were considered
sufficient. Geijer also argued how important it was that society’s higher class not
force any more education than that which would be necessary and useful to the
lower class – this could be dangerous, “an unblessed reform- and teacher-disease”
(Ibid., p. 27, own translation).
The committee did not reach any clear conclusions regarding the debate. The
gap in opinions was too large.
On October 21, 1837, the new Archbishop Johan Olof Wallin (1779–1839)
inaugurated the Cathedral School in Uppsala. Wallin had been one of the
opponents of public school reform. King Carl XIV Johan and Crown Prince Oscar
were among the inaugural crowd.
Geijer had later reviewed the speech in the journal Litteratur-Bladet (February,
1838). In his review, Geijer had taken a liberal standpoint, having now turned from
a conservative view on education to a liberal one. He wrote:
It is over twenty years since I have started to think and write about these
questions. After careful consideration, have I condensed my stock of
arguments on this matter into a single nail – the difference between one so-
called public class and an industrial class – and from this, deduced the
difference between public education, which should be the duty of the state,
and private education, that should continue as a private duty. The nail, I
suspect, seems to have hit a superfluous wall (Geijer, 1838, own translation).
He argued for an education for all. His defection to liberalism was sensational. The
medical authority at Uppsala University claimed that he was insane due to a
softened brain. Nevertheless, Geijer’s defection marked a shift towards the modern
Swedish society (Landquist, 1924) and a modern view on education and curricula.
On June 18, 1842, the decision was taken that “In each city parish and in each
country parish there should be at least one, preferably permanent, school with duly
approved teachers” (Act on Public Schooling, 1842, §1 Mom. 1 own translation).
With that decision, a public school system was established.
Public education had earlier been the sole task of the Church. Yet in the 16th
century, Sweden had shifted from Catholicism to Lutheranism. In the 1527
Parliament, Sweden’s King was granted power over the Church’s property and he
became responsible for the approval of all Church appointments. The clergy had to
follow civil laws and the “pure word of God” was to be preached in Swedish
churches and taught in schools.
The Church Law of 1686 regulated that the minister of a parish had to take
notes on his parish’s religious progress. Hence, protocols revealed how well
members of particular parishes could read and understand Luther’s catechism. The
law also regulated the duties of sextons who had teaching responsibilities for the
children of the parish. In 1723, literacy demands were strengthened by regulations

62
 EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

concerning household teaching duties. According to these regulations, the head of

a household had to see to it that household members could read and pass a
ministerial examination. Failing to meet the requirements led to fines.
The law reform of 1842 was not a literacy reform; Swedes were literate.
Reasons underlining the school reform were founded on ideas from the ideas from
the Enlightenment and the fact that people were literate. As one of the
consequences of literacy, people were reading what – according to Church and
state – they should not read. Printing techniques gave access to texts. New political
and religious ideas were being spread. The consequences of agrarian reforms
changed the social structure of villages, stimulated the economy and growing
industries, and furthered urbanisation. All these societal and economic changes
created social and political upheaval. In response, social order had to be stabilised.
Hence, the reform of 1842 is to be understood as both an active and a reactive
reform whereby the code underlining the establishment of a public school system
became: “God and the Fatherland” (Tingsten, 1969).
Industrialisation came rather late in Sweden. It was an agrarian society and the
risk capital necessary for the development of industry first was available in the late
19th century. But when it came, once striking roots in Sweden, industrialisation
was fast. Economists have shown that the educational level of the population, that
is, the human capital, in combination with the risk capital explains the pace and
volume of industrialisation (Ljungberg & Nilsson, 2009).
With a growing industrialisation new demands on education were formed.
Engineer schools were established alongside various types of vocational-oriented
institutes. Vocational education in Sweden has, as in most countries, its roots in
craftsmen education. With the forming of industrial production, the need for a
more organised vocational education was accentuated. At the end of the 19th
century, schools for vocational education were organised as Evening schools and
Sunday schools. In the beginning of the 20th century, specific industrial schools
were established by municipalities. Compared to Evening and Sunday schools,
these were full-time schools (Olofsson, 2005, p. 58, own translation). With a
growing labour market and work differentiation, education became essential for a
position in the labour market and attaining a level of salary gains. The political role
of education as an instrument for social, cultural and economic change became the
focus. Demands on one common school for all were articulated.
At the teacher’s union annual meeting in 1903, Fridtjuv Berg (1851–1916)1
addressed participants with a speech entitled: “The Swedish public school system
in the beginning of 20th century” In this speech, Berg pointed at a coming society
with new needs for education for all its citizens:
…the new century will be the century of industrialism, not only will
industries require more and more of the labour market, but other areas will
also be industrialised. This will demand the highest possible assimilation of
human intelligence, not only from the inventor and the supervisor but also
from the worker and in doing that, the public school has an important role
(Bruce 1940, s. 28) own translation).

63
U. P. LUNDGREN

In order to form such a school system it would be important to build-up further

education that would be pursued beyond the public school system.
In the beginning of the 20th century there were two parallel school systems: one
was public and the other was academic. These had to be linked to one another.
Hence, the politics of education during the first half of the century centred on how
to unify the system, the question of ability grouping, and the length of study.
A solution came in the ‘30s when the school system was organised in such a
way that from the public school there was a connection to the academic school.
After the academic school there was a three- or four-year long upper-secondary
education (Gymnasium), which could give entry to university studies. The
fundamental discussion concerning vocational education was the legal regulation
of apprenticeship. The employers’ union was against such regulations as its
members were afraid of the economic burden, so as a result, no legal regulations
were formed. First in 1938, the employers’ and labourers’ unions signed a contract
agreeing on certain actions regarding the labour market. This contract2 confirmed a
consensus. The agreement had an important impact for the development of the
economy and the labour market, as well as for the formation of a welfare society.

THE FORMING OF THE WELFARE STATE – A NEW EDUCATIONAL PARADIGM

Since around 1890, industrialisation had accelerated. New inventions and new
industries had been established. There was a potential in raw material and in
human capital. Education was seen as a political instrument for change and for the
individual, education was a way into the labour market and a way to change social
and cultural conditions; giving the conditions for a career. After the recession in
the twenties, Sweden developed as an industrial nation.
The right to vote was granted to men in 1909 and to women in 1919. The first
time all citizens over the age of 23 could vote, was in the 1921 election.
Influential Social Democrat, Ernst Wigforss (1881–1977)3 came into contact
with ideas developed by the political scientist and conservative politician Rudolf
Kjellén (1864–1922). Kjellén had developed the idea of the state as an organism
and life form. Wigforss elaborated on that viewpoint in support of the idea of a
strong state built on democracy – a state that served the needs of society. This line
of thought was then adopted by Per Albin Hansson (1885–1946) who served as
Prime Minister four times between 1932 and 1946. Hansson coined the term: “The
People`s Home” (Folkhemmet). This was a metaphor for the nation, as home, built
on consensus and equality, exercising virtues with solidarity, justice and humanity.
The strong state was a necessity in forming an equal society. In this society,
education was important as an instrument for development and for social justice.
Industry developed with an expanding economy. In 1938, as earlier mentioned,
the employers’ and the labourers’ unions entered a contract agreeing on
negotiations as the main way of settling disagreements and avoiding open conflicts
in the labour market. This gave stability to the labour market and has been talked
of as “The spirit of Saltsjöbaden” (Saltsjöbadsandan) after the place where the
agreement was reached. In this climate, demands on human capital resulted in an
expansion of education during the first part of the 20th century. In its turn, this

64
 EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

expansion raised demands on organisation. Several types of schools had been

formed and established. On the lower-secondary level there were – in the ‘40s –
eight different forms of schools, with five at the upper- secondary level. On the
primary level there was a parallel system to the public school – folkskolan – and
the academic school – realskolan. But in reality, the choice of school form was a
parental choice and not a student choice. Access to the academic school varied
throughout the country. The question that came into focus dealt with how to form
an equal school system (Cf. Lindensjö & Lundgren, 2000).
Sweden had not been actively involved in World War II, which gave it a post-
war economic head-start, with an expanding export industry. Thus the economic
frames for reforms were wide.
One motive for reforming and unifying the educational system was to shape a
system that would provide equal opportunities. Another motive was of an
administrative character: to simply have a single, unified system. A third
discernable motive was that education had come to be seen as an investment – for
the individual and society. It was also viewed as a political instrument for creating
a democratic society. In the report from the first School Committee of 1940, these
motives were formulated in the following way:
With the continuous change of democratisation there is a more visible will to
organise the school system in such a way that each type and each degree of
formation is possible for each young citizen, irrespective of sex, place of
living, class and economic conditions (SOU 1944:23, p. 41, own translation).
During a ten-year period, between 1942 and 1952, the number of pupils in
elementary schools increased in a drastic way. In its turn, this expansion demanded
new physical space and an increase in number of teachers. Of course, increased
urbanisation also impacted educational planning. In the first decades of the last
century, population in cities doubled; from 10% to 20%. Around 1943, it had
doubled again and in 1950, more than 50% of the country’s population lived in
cities.
The economical impact of education came into focus. During the ‘50s, several
economists demonstrated how investments in education were related to increased
GNP (Gross National Product) (Cf. Blaug, 1966), and economic motives for
reforming the educational system became a part of political discourses about
educational reforms. Behind the arguments for reforms were also changes on the
international scene. The launching of Sputnik also marked a new area in
curriculum development. A year later, in 1958, the International Association for
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) was founded. One of the driving
persons at the IEA was a Swedish educator; Professor Torsten Husén.
As said, one motive for change was to create a democratic school system that
would foster a democratic citizen. This meant that schools not only had to be
organised in a way that opened-up for opportunities, but that the inner life of every
school would have to prepare for democracy. Experiences from the fascistic
movements before and during World War II demanded an education that fostered
basic democratic values.

65
U. P. LUNDGREN

The reform movement started with an expert committee – the 1940 School
Committee. The 1940 Committee made a thorough investigation of the existing
system resulting in 20 published reports containing over 10,000 printed pages.
However, these experts could not present a model for how to organise the school
system. The basic obstacle was the question of ability grouping. A new and
parliamentary committee was established, the 1946 School Commission, one year
prior to the 1940 Committee finishing its work.
The 1946 School Commission came to have a long-lasting impact on educational
policy and school development. Experts were engaged in the Commission, among
whom were also teachers who had worked earlier in the progressive movement.
Progressive education and the work and ideas of John Dewey had been introduced
to Sweden in the beginning of the century (Cf. Lundgren, 1987) and German
progressive pedagogues, such as Kerschensteiner, lectured in Sweden. The
influence was already visible in the 1919 Curriculum for the public schools. Ester
Hermansson and Elsa Köhler, the latter from Austria, became central figures in the
development of activity pedagogy. Hermansson was one of the experts involved in
the Commission. Köhler held series of seminars for Swedish and Norwegian
teachers and published in 1936 the book Activity Pedagogy in which her basic ideas
and methods were presented. Documentation, observation and evaluation were
central themes. The political development in Europe, however, erased the
progressive movement. Elsa Köhler’s disappeared.
With the school reforms following World War II, progressive ideas returned but
this time not only among teachers. These ideas were incorporated into state
commissions and adopted by the state. In 1947, Köhler’s students published Vårt
Arbetssätt (Our Way of Working) (Falk, Glanzelius, Hammarstrand, Hermansson &
Skäringer-Larsson, 1947), a book which had an impact on teacher education. A
second publication which had an important influence on the Commission’s work
was Alva4 and Gunnar5 Myrdal’s 1941 book Kontakt med Amerika (Encounter
America), which included a chapter entitled “Uppfostran i samhällets mitt”
(Education in the centre of society). Two ideas that became visible include the use
of evaluation to govern educational development and the construct of knowledge
from practice. The long-experienced influence from German education and
philosophers such as Humboldt had been broken, and new influence started coming
from the West.
However, the School Commission could not give a definitive answer to the
question of when to introduce ability grouping; when to divide the pupils into
different streams. Or in other words, how far up in the ages can we have a
comprehensive system? An experimental period was decided upon in 1950 and it
was ended some ten years later by a parliamentary decision in 1962 on a nine-year
comprehensive school. This experimental period was to be used for the evaluation
of the different alternatives. Any summative evaluation of the experiments was
never conducted, but there were some critical studies of the effects of early and late
differentiation. The most important one was the so-called “Stockholm Study”
(Svensson, 1962; Cf. Lundgren, 1972), which had an impact on the later decision
of establishing a nine-year, comprehensive school system.

66
 EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

One basic idea examined during the experimental period was that teaching
processes could be individualised within frames of a school’s class. This belief
fostered the idea that scientific knowledge about learning could be transformed
into an educational technology and materialised in educational tools.
Consequently, educational technology built on a strict and simple idea about goal-
governing, by specifying goals in term of behaviour and by evaluating and
reinforcing each step in learning processes. By applying educational technology,
educational processes could be highly rationalised. Ideas underpinning educational
technology were never rooted in the school system, but they were adopted by the
central administration at the National Board of Education (NBE) and certainly had
an impact on how the national evaluation was to be constructed and implemented.
Educational technology’s essence responded to the need for a new legitimacy built
on applied science. Consensus regarding subjective evaluations carried out by
inspectors had been broken. In a school system built on basic ideas about equality,
a new objective and rational consent would have to be achieved
The educational policy of the ‘50s and ‘60s was based on what could be
described as an idea of educational engineering. After the decision passed on
creating a comprehensive school system in 1962, upper-secondary school was
reformed through parliamentary decisions in 1964 and 1968 and theoretical and
vocational study lines were organised within a unified system (gymnasieskolan).
This being the case, societal changes came to take on quite another development
than what had been expected and planned for. The compromises that had been
taken around the construction of the Comprehensive school had unexpected
consequences. Many individual choices had been offered during the last three
years of the Comprehensive school. This construction demanded that large school
units become capable of offering all the alternatives. The increasing urbanisation
resulted in new large school units located in densely populated areas. The school
system seemed to become more factory-like, struggling to create order and provide
a decent education; overall, it was becoming more and more problematic. These
consequences called for new reforms in the ‘70s.
This, however, was a decade of changed conditions. For the first time since the
‘30s, the economy dropped. In 1973, OPEC countries (Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries) dramatically raised oil prices to nearly four times their usual
level as a consequence of the Arabian-Israeli war. The second crisis came in 1978,
with the revolution in Iran. Student “revolutions”, igniting in Paris, focussed
attention on educational systems and the inability to shape an equal education. The
environmental movement also started during this period. The political landscape
was changing. In 1976, Sweden elected a new government that for the first time in
40 years was not Social Democratic. Basic industries, such as the steel and
shipbuilding industries, which were raw-material-intensive, faced a new
competition that mainly came from Southeast Asia. The energy crisis was thus
followed by an industrial crisis that was then followed by a financial crisis and
finally, a political crisis.
One important change concerned the relationship between national policy-
making and the control of the national economy. Production had changed
character. Capital was shifting locations: from lying in tools and machinery to

67
U. P. LUNDGREN

become human competence capital. To move enterprises in which the main

substance was human competence was easier than moving tools and machinery. To
finance reforms by increasing taxes, possible during the period of expansion, was
limited in a more global economy. And with an increasing dependence on the
international economy, the possibilities of managing the national economy and
incentives for growth changed in nature.
These changes have accentuated one of the basic problems of the modern state,
having profound implications for its legitimacy. The problem of legitimacy in a
situation of diminished economic control became, in some instances, the impetus
for moving state reforms from cost-taking initiatives to a symbolic reconstruction
of existing institutions.
The transformation from a labour market structured by industrial production to a
labour market structured by service production the information technology, created
new demands and reforms. It can be argued that the traditional organisations
erected to handle the economy and politics of a modern, industrialised society were
no longer suited to handling a late-modern society. These organisations could not
mobilise support for action. Accordingly, state institutions such as schools could
not attract and build on the interests of clients or users. Governance had to take
other paths.
The financing of reforms in the late seventies faced a dilemma. The
development of production – in the emerging knowledge society – demanded more
of education. New resources were not easy to mobilise by increasing taxation.
Further expansion had to be financed in new ways and by higher productivity.
The expectations of increased efficiency and productivity called for concrete,
well-articulated goals and a steady direction. But in the 1970s and 1980s, the
governing subject – the government and administration – became weaker and
fragmented. Evidence of this resides in the splitting-up of mass parties into smaller
political factions, beginning around 1980, which thereby forced the creation of
fragile governing coalitions. It has been argued that the classical ability of a
government to be strong and able to reject demands was lost in the 1970s (Grozier,
1977).
The political authority of a government and its administration is derived from
two elements: its effectiveness and public consent. Effectiveness and consent are
related, but they can be in conflict. In order to guarantee the consent of the
electors, more and more interest groups and associations had been formed.
However, this had also created new problems. As more organisations were formed,
the more negotiations became necessary to gain support for one or another line of
action, or for a reform. A cooperative negotiating context was formed, but such a
context was susceptible to indifference with respect to participation: citizens could
become de-motivated (Cf. Rose, 1980, pp. 9–10).
These problems resulted in governing documents, like curricula, having become
more abstract – allowing for various interpretations. Thus, these political contexts
created forces, which lead to actions, which contradicted what seemed necessary
for reforms that would meet the needs of a new political context, i.e. well-
articulated goals and a steady direction. At the same time, many of the changes
were only part of more complex changes in the conditions of political leadership.

68
 EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

It became more and more evident during the 1980s and later in the 1990s that
earlier planning models could not be used. During the expansion, specialisation of
the administration became a practical solution. But faced with the need to take new
types of decisions in a different societal context, the existing/older organisation
seemed unable to act rationally. With limited resources, various sectors of
government were forced to compete with one another. A consequence of this
competition was, in some places, that goals for education were broadened in order
to make the educational sector look as important as, or more important than, other
sectors. This broadening of goals was reinforced by the necessity to satisfy various
and often different demands. Once again, the contradiction between what was
produced and what was needed became apparent. Goals became more abstract
despite the fact that more clearly stated goals were needed.
Many political scientists in the 1970s pointed out (Cf. Wildavsky, 1976) that the
governing subject – the political leadership – had problems taking initiative for an
active reform policy. There are clear examples of a fragmentation of the
educational administration, which thereby created problems concerning overall
planning and the ability to master complex groups of interrelated challenges. Also,
there was a definitive tendency towards more policy-making being carried out by
the administration itself.

THE VANISHING WELFARE SOCIETY – THE FOURTH PARADIGM

The welfare society had come under attack. At the end of the decade, Margaret
Thatcher became Prime Minister of Great Britain and held that position until 1990.
In The U.S., Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1981 and stayed in office
until 1989. The neo-liberal ideas emanating from these two administrations had
changed the discourse about the relation between state and society in the U.K. and
the USA as well as in Sweden.
Changing tides, public education had been both a part of the Swedish welfare
state and a prominent example of it. By the latter part of the 20th century, however,
strong voices called for an increase in private education. By the 1970s, the public
debate focussed on the effectiveness of public education: it had not delivered what
it had promised. The goal of social equality through equal educational opportunity
was still unfulfilled; differences between students of different backgrounds
remained and, in some cases, increased. In addition, students seemed to learn
subordination rather than democratic citizenship values. Education, as an
instrument for social change, seemed to have become a fairly blunt instrument
which was difficult to control from the centre. While reforms succeeded in
increasing access to education, socially and geographically, social background
remained the best predictor of educational attainment (Härnqvist, 1992). In the
mid-1980s and the early 1990s, two National Commissions recommended major
changes in the governance of the welfare system (SOU 1990:44; SOU 1993:16).
As a result, Swedish education policy shifted from a centrally organised system to
a decentralised system with tendencies to market-orientation in the 1980s
(Lindensjö & Lundgren, 2000; Telhaug, 1994). This trend was consistent with
many other countries’ experience at the time and incorporated elements of local

69
U. P. LUNDGREN

development, school improvement projects, school-based evaluation and role

changes for school leaders. Social Democrats as well as non-socialist party
members contributed to these changes, which the Social Democrats introduced and
other political parties developed. There were, however, different motives for the
changes. While the Social Democrats, at least initially, considered the new form of
governance as a way of attaining equality and informing local school development
through evaluation, non-socialists wished to introduce both new goals and new
instruments that would promote individual choice (Englund, 1995).
Criticism of the welfare state focused on difficulties in governance,
inefficiencies, and an overload of administrative tasks. Government bureaucracies
appeared to be inflexible, increasing in size, and costly, “leaving civil society with
small possibilities for intervention and participation” (Klette et al., 2000 p. 12). In
addition, better-educated citizens called for more influence over their own lives
and in social affairs. What has been thought of as the Swedish model, with its
strong public sector, came under attack and was increasingly being considered as a
problem rather than as an effective agent in the distribution of benefits and being
an instrument for social change.
The problems were also related to external changes: greater dependence on the
global economy and international co-operation and agreements; the development
of new communication technologies, with consequences for the labour market; and
the transition from a society dominated by industrial production to a service and
knowledge society. As said, increasing taxes to finance reforms, a feasible strategy
during the earlier period of expansion, became a more limited option in a more
global economy. At the same time, the transformation from an industrial to a
service and knowledge marketplace, which required new information technologies,
put new and increased demands on education in a response to the adult
population’s need to obtain the skills required to compete in the changing job
market (Granheim, Kogan & Lundgren, 1990).
The political context also changed. During the ‘70s and ‘80s, the central
government became increasingly fragmented. The longstanding Social Democratic
governance struggled within fragile coalitions, sometimes under Conservative, but
mostly under Social Democratic, administrations. New political parties entered
Parliament, and there was, at the same time, a trend towards less coherence in the
administrative organisation with increasing specialisation and division of labour.
In the late ‘80s, a parliamentary committee was given the task of investigating
political governance and suggest a new model. Political parties became divided.
The Conservatives and the Liberals argued for the opening-up of the system for
independent schools. The Centre Party (former Farmer Party) argued for
decentralisation, and the Left Party (former Communist Party) supported the
creation of a centralised system. The Social Democrats were divided in either
keeping the centralised system or decentralising it. The Minister of Schools
resigned and a new Minister was appointed. He had been a local politician and
while in office as the Minister, was delegated to decentralise the school system.6 A
bill was presented in 1990. In this bill, the decentralisation of the school system
was suggested and a new model for political governing was presented (Prop.
1990/91:18).

70
 EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

THE NINETIES AND THE FIRST DECADE OF THE CENTURY

The main changes of the 1990s concern early childhood education, compulsory
school and upper-secondary school, but reforms of adult, as well as higher,
education, including teacher education, had also been undertaken. The
restructuring of the Swedish school system occurred in three stages: (1) increasing
decentralisation and deregulation; (2) revising educational goals and content; and
(3) increasing the consistency of the legal, financial, ideological, and evaluation
systems to respond to the earlier changes.
During the 1990s, preschool, compulsory school, and school childcare had
become gradually more closely associated one with the other. By 1995,
municipalities became obligated to provide childcare for all children aged 1–12. As
of today, this applies to all special needs children and children of parents who are
working, studying or are on parental leave. In addition, free pre-school classes had
been established.
It was also decided that students aged 20 or more could attend adult education
programmes that include basic and upper-secondary adult education (with
corresponding content to compulsory and upper-secondary school) as well as
Swedish for immigrants. In addition, a new form of post-secondary, vocational
education was erected, which complemented what institutions of higher education
had on offer. The vocational courses would normally last for two years and were
characterised by their close relation to workplaces. A new adult education initiative
sought to reduce unemployment and the growing gap in levels of education.
Sweden also has a long tradition of folk high schools and study circles organised
by adult education associations, designed for a wide range of the population and
covering a wide variety of subjects. These were bolstered.
During the 1990s, there had been a major expansion in higher education in
terms of institutions, programmes, types of examinations, and students. Additional
financial incentives encouraged students to attend upper-secondary school and then
university. For example, all students aged 16–20 attending upper-secondary school
would receive (and still receive) state study-assistance. Moreover, and in addition
to free university education, students’ non-repayable portion of study-assistance
had increased over the years. A new state study-assistance programme also
facilitated attendance to higher education or adult education by the unemployed
aged 25–55. Since 1990, the number of students in higher education has increased
by more than 60%.
In the ‘90s, Sweden implemented a cluster of reforms:
− A decentralisation of the entire school system;
− A new model for political governing built on goal- and results-governing;
− New curricula;
− The National Board of Education NBE) was abolished and replaced by a new
agency: The National Agency for Education (NAE) The National Board had
been the state agency for schooling since 1920.
− A three-year-long programme-oriented and course-oriented upper-secondary
school system;

71
U. P. LUNDGREN

− A new market system;

− An independent school system;
− Pre-school education was moved from the social sector to the educational sector
and given a curriculum;
− A new school for six-year-olds;
− A programme for adult education;
On average, Sweden has spent annually 8% of its GNP (or 174 billion Swedish
crowns [SEK]),7 on education in the first decade of the 21st century. Costs had
increased by 18% over a five-year period and throughout, almost 40% of the
Swedish population had been enrolled in either educational programmes or
working schools. In this context, the Swedish population is a prime example of
what I have called the “Homo Pedagogicus” (Lundgren, 2002).
Educational quality is a central theme in discussions about education reform in
Sweden and in assessments of the specific, implemented reforms (Nytell, 2003).
The concern about quality has translated into a focus on outcome measures,
programme monitoring and programme evaluation. Not surprisingly, the
production of statistics has increased in recent years due to a rising interest on
the part of politicians, the media, and the public, as well as participation in
international studies. Municipalities and schools are now required to review their
activities and present results in a quality report. On the basis of these reports, the
national government provides support to municipalities to help them achieve
national goals. Rankings for lower- and upper-schools, as well as universities, have
become a more frequent phenomenon years. During 2001, the national government
constructed an extensive database containing quantitative and qualitative data,
which is now available on the Internet. In addition, national school inspectors
monitor the quality of education for a range of special topics. While at least some
of the Swedish educational reforms have been designed to decentralise and
increase flexibility, central control also has been strengthened by the focus on
outcome measures as a way of improving educational quality.
Sweden, however, is a more divided and polarised country today than it was
10–15 years ago, with respect to income, wealth, living conditions and housing
segregation. Categories traditionally associated with exclusion are unemployment,
low education and low income. In the 1990s, youth and ethnic background
gradually received political attention and programmes supporting the youth and
students of various ethnic backgrounds in entering the labour market were
implemented. Even though education has expanded significantly, societal divisions
continue to be reflected in education, and in some respects, they have also
increased A rather large number of students cannot enter a national programme at
the upper-secondary school level, and many of those who enter do not complete
their upper-secondary school or higher education studies. Also noticeable is the
more frequent use of ability grouping in schools, as well as the decrease in special
education within classes and the increased number of children attending special
schools. Children from marginalised families are less likely to succeed in school;
the new grading system makes a distinction between those who succeed and those
who fail more visibly than before. Moreover, a larger proportion attend special

72
 EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

programmes in upper-secondary school and dropout rates are high; a relatively

small proportion attend higher education at all and few of those can be found in
high status programmes.
The restructuring of Swedish education provides a case study of policy change
implemented by a welfare state in transition, with scarce finances, governing
problems, and (at least in the perception of some of the population) a lack of
legitimacy. It was hoped that decentralisation, deregulation, and freedom of choice
would increase democratic participation, efficiency, and professionalism. At the
same time, however, greater control in the form of accountability for results
occurred at every level of the education system and in fact, contributed to renewed
centralisation. To complicate matters, the restructuring began during the economic
recession of the 1990s. In short, the consequences of the changes for students and
teachers, as well as for Swedish society as a whole, are still evolving.
The educational policies during the first decade of the 21st century have
focussed on the delivery of educational outcomes. To some extent, the
consequences of September 11, 2001 can symbolically and even actually been seen
as triggering new forms of control. Sweden was no exception. The welfare state
was under attack and had been accused of being too costly and inefficient. The
evaluative or controlling state was a response enhanced by the tragedy of 9/11. Of
course, this is somewhat of an overstatement, but it is nevertheless a way of
pointing out a delicate change, wherein the emphasis in resource allocations is
situated.
Since the beginning of the 1990s the Swedish administration of education at the
national level has changed several times. Tasks like monitoring, inspection and
development have been interchangeably managed by one, two or three agencies. In
the early restructuring years, the independence and accountability of the
municipality level was stressed. Shortages in the school system, especially in
relation to the inability in handling school development and poor student
performances, lead to a split of the National Agency. The controlling task was
separated from the responsibility to support school improvement. In 2008, this was
further changed. These two tasks were reunited simultaneous to the formation of a
new Agency. Subsequently, the monitoring function was separated. National
evaluations of the school system remained part of the former Agency’s
responsibility. The task of examining the standards of quality and school
equivalency, by inspection and supervision, was being executed by a new
authority – the National Schools Inspectorate. At this time, the amount of money
designated towards inspections doubled. In addition, the Agency became
responsible for the authorisation of and grants to independent schools.
Results from the PISA studies (OECD 2007a, 2007b) highlight Sweden as being
in a rather good position; however, the tendency to loose positioning and attain
weaker results is still evident, even if it does not appear as significant (Åström,
2008). The public discussion has, nevertheless, concentrated on crisis. Results
from PISA have been mixed with earlier results from IEA studies (TIMSS and
PIRLS)8 as well as results from national tests, evaluation and inspection reports.
The Minister of Education has used criticism emanating from these results for
advocating change. The crisis of the Swedish educational system is a fact in the

73
U. P. LUNDGREN

public discourse. Widening the debate through national newspaper reports and
articles, for example, has been difficult
Problems to enter into the debate, in for example national newspapers, have
been numerous.
The ways of handling this alleged crisis have been both to reinforce market
solutions with independent schools and to control students’ performances earlier in
their study cycles, and more frequently through tests, marks and inspection. The
number of independent schools has increased at the comprehensive school level
and even more so, at the upper-secondary school level. There is an ongoing and
stressed debate on this issue in relation to questions on equity. The enhanced
control is in part considered as a response to the equity problem, regarded as a first
step to reducing the gender, ethnicity and class gap in students’ performances.
There seems to be an ongoing increase of production and circulation of
information on students’ performances and school results.
Voices in support of a recentralisation of the educational system have emerged
and the government has launched a large programme for teacher in-service training
that parallel new possibilities for teachers to obtain further education at the master
and doctoral levels, and a new special needs teacher education. A new teacher
education has been implemented in 2011. The financial crisis is over and Sweden
came out in good standing. Thus, there is space for reforms and expansion;
however, a reconstruction of the old “People’s Home” is not on the agenda. The
objective is a more competitive educational system.
In short, the relative autonomy of the municipalities, schools and teachers is
challenged in several ways. Simplification of and clearness in curricula objectives
and state-governed intervention through visitations of development activities and
inspections are examples of the reduction of the scope of action that exists at the
local level. Several reforms in-the-making, seem to be pointing in the same
direction.

SOME FINAL WORDS

What I have tried to outline is the interplay between ideas and material conditions
that have shaped changes and developments of educational policies, programmes,
structures and curricula in Sweden. These changes have been based on and have
moulded ways of thinking and understandings in relation to the meaning of
education, its purpose and its power to change society and individual life patterns. I
have herein tried to describe and analyse these structures and patterns of thinking
from the conceptual position of a curriculum code (Lundgren, 1979, 1991, 1992).
The concept of curriculum code is to be understood as a concept about patterns
of thinking that govern the activities that shape the politics of education as
pedagogical practice. The concept is closely related to “styles of thinking”, as
used by Fleck – fundamental to his epistemological works (Fleck, 1935). There
are two central concepts he uses. One is “styles of thinking”, which connotes
patterns of, and for, thinking developed by negotiations among scientists within a
specific area. The other is the social context of a speciality that is a form of
“mental-collective”. Politics of education in term of how power over education is

74
 EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

configured (Bernstein & Lundgren, 1983) are exercised within a “mental-

collective” and the patterns of thinking or “styles of thinking” are developed
within this collective. Fleck’s idea has been further developed by Kuhn who uses
the concept paradigm to correspond to “styles of thinking”, and scientific
community to correspond to “mental-collective” (Kuhn, 1970).
I use the concepts of curriculum code and educational communities when
analysing how “styles of thinking” or paradigms are developed within educational
communities.
For a long time, Sweden has been an agrarian country. The curriculum code was
a moral one and the educational community was led by the Church.
Industrialisation came late. But due to education and a high literacy level, we
have had a somewhat remarkable economic, social and cultural development where
education has played a central role. A new realistic curriculum code was
established in tandem to the modern society.
The shift of the direction of curricula towards science and modern language had
an impact. From the 1930s onwards, a special form of welfare society was created
in which education was given a central role in shaping not only competence and
human capital, but also the democratic person. Equality and solidarity were key
concepts. A broader citizen curriculum code was developed (Englund, 1980, 1986)
and was linked to the concept of “Folkhemmet” and thus, the welfare society.
Today, a new code is in its genesis. The educational community is a new one,
economically based on service production. In this new code, individuality and
individual choice are of importance and in turn, motivated by an economic rationality.
Today, the role of education is to stimulate economic growth and formation in
what is measurable by assessment. It is difficult for arguments against the existing
order to find a place in the debate and become accepted in the public discourse.
Medical authorities concluded that Erik Gustav Geijer had a soft brain after he
argued for an education for all and a curriculum that included the new sciences and
modern languages. That type of judgment is not used today, but not accepting the
discourse within the educational community remains difficult.

NOTES
1
Ecclesiastical Minister, 1905–1906 and 1911–1914.
2
This contract is named after the place in which it was signed; Saltsjöbaden, near Stockholm. The
ideal of the contract is called the spirit of Saltsjöbaden (Saltsjöbadsandan) that endured into the ‘60s.
3
Member of Parliament and Minister of Finance, 1925–1926, 1932–1936 and 1936–1949.
4
(1902–1986). Member of Parliament, Minister 1966–1970; teacher educator; diplomat, 1982 Nobel
Peace Prize recipient, married to Gunnar Myrdal.
5
(1898–1987). Member of Parliament, Minister 1945–1947, 1974 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences
recipient, married to Alva Myrdal.
6
Göran Persson (1949): Minister of Schools (1989–1990); Minister of Finance (1994–1996); Prime
Minister (1996–2006); Chairman of the Social Democratic Party (1996–2007).
7
Approximately 197.2 million euro as per Bloomberg.com, January 6, 2012.
8
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA); Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS); Progress in International Reading Literacy
Study (PIRLS).

75
U. P. LUNDGREN

REFERENCES

Aquilonius, K. (1942). Det svenska folkundervisningsväsendet 1809-1860 [The Swedish public

education 1809-1860]. In Fredriksson, V., Svenska folkskolans historia. Andra delen [The history of
Sweden’s public school system. The second part.] (Second volume). Stockholm: Albert Bonniers
Förlag.
Bernstein, B. & Lundgren, U. P. (1983). Makt, kontroll och pedagogik [Power, control and pedagogy].
Lund: Liber Förlag.
Blaug, M. (1966). Economics of education. London: Pergamon Press.
Englund, T. (1980). Medborgerlig läroplanskod: För folkskola, fortsättningsskola och grundskola
1918/19-? [The curriculum code of citizens]. Stockholm: Högskolan för Lärarutbildning.
Bruce, N.O. ”Det svenska folkundervisningsväsendet 1900 – 1920”. I Fredriksson, V.: Folkskolans
historia. Fjärde delen. Stockholm: Bonniers 1940.
Englund, T. (1986). Curriculum as a political problem: Changing educational conceptions, with special
reference to citizenship education. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
International.
Englund, T. (Ed.). (1995). Utbildningspolitiskt systemskifte? [A paradigm shift in educational policy?].
Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
Falk, K., Glanzelius, M., Hammarstrand, A., Hermansson, E. & Skäringer-Larsson, E. (1947). Vårt
arbetssätt. Aktivitetspedagogik i praktisk utformning [Our way of working. Activity pedagogy in
practice]. Stockholm: Kooperativa Förbundets Förslag.
Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die
Lehre von Denkstil und Denkkollektiv [Formation and development of a scientific fact: Introduction
to the theory of collective thinking and thinking styles]. Basel: Schwabe und Co.
Forsberg, E. (Ed.). (2003). Skolan och tusenårsskiftet. En vänbok till Ulf P. Lundgren [School and the
new millennium. A book in honour of Ulf P. Lundgren]. Studies in Educational Policy and
Educational Philosophy: Research Reports, 2003:2. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
Fredriksson, V. (1942). Svenska folkskolans historia. Andra delen [The history of Sweden’s public
school system. The second part.] (Second volume). Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.
Geijer, E. G. (1838). Tal vid invigning af nya Katedral-Skole-huset i Upsala d. 21 Okt. 1837 – Uti H. M.
Konungens & H. K. H. Kronprinsens höga öfvervaro af J. O. Wallin Erke-Biskop [Speech at the
inauguration of the new Cathedral-school-house in Upsala 21 October 1837 – Uti H. M. the King &
Crown Prince H. K. H. overseen by Archbishop J. O. Wallin]. Retrieved from http://art-
bin.com/art/ogeijer.html
Goodson, I. (1987). International perspectives in curriculum history. London: Croom Helm.
Granheim, M., Kogan, M. & Lundgren U. P. (Eds.). (1990). Evaluation as policymaking. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Grozier, M. (1977). The governability of west European society. Essex: University of Essex.
Härnqvist, K. (1992). Utbildningsreformer och social selection [Educational reforms and social
selection]. In R. Åberg (Ed.), Social bakgrund, utbildning, livschanser [Social background,
education, life opportunities]. Stockholm: Carlssons Förlag.
Klette, K., Carlgren, I., Rasmussen, J., Simola, H. & Sundkvist, M. (2000). Restructuring Nordic
teachers: An analysis of policy texts from Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Oslo: University
of Oslo.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Köhler, E. (1936). Aktivitetspedagogik [Activity pedagogy]. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Landquist, J. (1924). Erik Gustav Geijer, hans levnad och verk [Erik Gustav Geijer, his life and work].
Stockholm: Norstedt.
Lindensjö, B. & Lundgren, U. P. (2000). Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning [Educational
reforms and political governing]. Stockholm: HLS Förlag./Stockholm University Press.
Ljungberg, J. & Nilsson, A. (2009). Human capital and economic growth: Sweden 1870-2000.
Cliometrica, 3(2), 71–95.
Lundgren, U. P. (1972). Frame factors and the teaching process. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

76
 EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE SOCIETY

Lundgren, U. P. (1979). Att organisera omvärlden [To organize the world about us] (5th ed.).
Stockholm: Liber.
Lundgren, U. P. (1987). John Dewey in Sweden. Notes on progressivism in Swedish education 1900-
1945. In I. Goodson, International perspectives in curriculum history London: Croom Helm.
Lundgren, U. P. (1991). Between education and schooling. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Lundgren, U. P. (1992). Teoria del curriculum y escolarización [Theory of curriculum and schooling].
Madrid: Morata.
Lundgren, U. P. (2002). Homo pedagogicus? Framtider, 3, 4–10.
Myrdal, A. & Myrdal, G. (1941). Kontakt med Amerika [Encounter America]. Stockholm: Bonniers.
Nytell, H. (2003). Kvalitetsvågen – några utsnitt i en dokumentstudie [The quality wave – some parts of
a document study]. In E. Forsberg (Ed.), Skolan och tusenårsskiftet. En vänbok till Ulf P. Lundgren
[School and the new millennium. A book in honour of Ulf P. Lundgren] (pp. 135-144). Studies in
Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy: Research Reports, 2003:2. Uppsala: Uppsala
Universitet.
OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD.
Olofsson J. (2005). Svensk yrkesutbildning. Vägval i internationell belysning [Swedish vocational
education. Options in international comparison]. Stockholm: SNS Förlag.
Prop. 1990/91:18. (1990). Om ansvaret för skolan [The school’s responsibility]. Stockholm:
Utbildningsdepartementet.
Rose, R. (1980). The nature of challenge. In Rose, R. (Ed.), Challenge to governance: Studies in
overloaded politics (pp. 9–10). London: Sage.
SOU 1944:23. (1944). Skolan i samhällets tjänst [School in the service of society]. Stockholm:
Ecklesiastikdepartementet.
SOU 1990:44. (1990). Demokrati och makt i Sverige: Maktutredningens huvudrapport [Democracy and
power: The main report]. Stockholm: Allmänna Förlaget.
SOU 1993:16. (1993). Nya villkor för ekonomi och politik: Ekonomikommisionens förslag [New
conditions for the economy and politics: Economic commission proposals]. Stockholm: Allmänna
Förlaget.
SOU 1993:16. (1993). Nya villkor för ekonomi och politik: Ekonomikommisionens förslag. (New
conditions for economy and politics). Stockholm: Allmänna förlaget.
Svensson, N-E. (1962). Ability grouping and scholastic achievement. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Telhaug, A. O. (1994). Den nye utdanningspolitiske retorikken: Bilder av internasjonal skoleutvikling
[The new rhetoric of educational policy: Pictures from the international development of education].
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Tingsten, H. (1969). Gud och fosterlandet. Studier i hundra års skolpropaganda [God and the
Fatherland. Studies of one hundred years of school propaganda]. Stockholm: P.A. Norstedts &
Söners Förlag.
Wildavsky, A. (1976). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company.
Åberg, R. (Ed.). (1992). Social bakgrund, utbildning, livschanser [Social background, education, life
opportunities]. Stockholm: Carlssons Förlag.
Åström, M. (2008). Defining integrated science education and putting it to [the] test. (Doctoral
dissertation). Faculty of Educational Sciences, Linköping University: Linköping.

Ulf P. Lundgren
Department of Education
Uppsala University

77
 SECTION II

GLOBALISATION AND NEW TRENDS

 MARÍA JOSÉ GARCÍA RUIZ

5. PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL

PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY IN THE ERA
OF GLOBALISATION

INTRODUCTION

In academic circles there is a great deal of debate regarding the nature and the
meaning of globalisation. There are writers who claim that globalisation
”constitutes a new and specific relationship between Nation States and the global
economy” (Dale, 2007, p. 48) through which “national governments are forced to
seek the modernisation of their national economies […] and to strengthen their
national welfare systems’ capacity for international competition“ (Ibid., p. 49).
Whichever definition is preferred for globalisation and the geographical-temporal
coordinates of its origin, there seems to be no consensus regarding whether the
globalisation process has a unifying and homogeneous impact on the different
countries subjected to its influence or whether, to the contrary, the effect tends to
result in the diversification of national politics. Some authors refer to this
ambivalence as the “paradox” of globalisation (Ibid.). Perhaps the realities of
unification’ and ‘homogenisation’ are those which most immediately come to mind
when the globalisation process is mentioned. Indeed, some academics point to the
process of ‘unification’ as one (among others) of the typical features of
globalisation (Pedró & Rolo, 1998, pp. 266–271; Puelles, 2006). This is not
surprising if one considers that one of the collective responses of nation states to
the process of globalisation has been the granting of a huge prominence to a series
of international organisations (the OECD, the World Bank, the European Union,
etc.) to which the signatories have voluntarily conceded a significant proportion of
their national political power as a way of maintaining their privileged position
within the world economy. This unifying influence is also evident in the fact that
such organisations are directed by a common ideology with key characteristics, of
an economic nature, which constitute ‘ideological filters’ (Dale, 2007, p. 51) which
influence the direction to be adopted by the decisions arising from national
policies. Globalisation in this sense creates similar challenges for states, which
express their possible responses in similar ways (Dale, 2007, p. 48).
However, there are authors who prefer to emphasise the potential for diversity
inherent in globalisation (Dale, 2007; Gibbons, 2004). The central argument of
these authors is that, as opposed to the traditional mechanisms of external political
influence (borrowing policies, learning policies), the mechanisms of

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 81–102.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

globalisation´s external political influence possess qualitatively diverse

characteristics from the traditional mechanisms and that they represent a source of
diversification in those national policies that is subject to its influence (Dale, 2007,
p. 49). According to these authors, those same new mechanisms through which
globalisation operates (harmonisation, dissemination, standardisation,
establishment of interdependence, imposition) (Ibid., 52, p. 52), are not merely
neutral channels; rather, they condition and modify the nature of the effect that
they provoke, especially in the three main forms of regionalisation (Europe, Asia
and America). Without going into great detail on each globalisation mechanism,
one may consider that their characteristics as compared to the traditional
mechanisms of external political influence can be seen in the fact that their area of
action does not only concern political processes: the area of action includes
political objectives, which are initiated externally and which cover a wide
spectrum of forms of power. According to this position, globalisation has not only
made nation states obsolete, but the social and cultural characteristics, along with
the range of existing specific national policies, constitute structures to which
innovations must be adapted (Ibid., p. 51), thus guaranteeing the survival of
diversity.
The globalisation phenomenon exercises its unifying and diversifying effects in
the reality of the educational paradigms which are developed in contemporary
education systems. This phenomenon and the unprecedented expansion of new
technologies at the beginning of the 20th century have given rise to a context
within which may be questioned the validity of traditional educational paradigms
and the proposal for paradigmatic changes which are more in line with the current
reality of western societies. This spirit of transformation is being particularly
supported and suggested by those academics who consider themselves ‘post-
modernist’, through their innovative and often breakaway vision of the different
social and educational aspects of contemporary society.
It can be stated that a paradigm is made up of “beliefs, values, theories, models
and techniques used by researchers in order to legitimate their work or direct their
investigations” (Kuhn in Holmes, 1986, p. 180). As both authors point out, theories
within the bounds of the Social Sciences never quite reach the status of those
which are found in the area of the Natural Sciences. This means that when there
are paradigm shifts within the Social Sciences, not only are these shifts accepted
by a small group of radical thinkers but, in fact, the theories and beliefs which
precede the scientific revolutions continue to be the basis of researchers’ work.
Thus there are academics who base their work on paradigms created by Plato while
other social science researchers work with alternative paradigms. Paradigm shifts
within the Social Sciences rarely imply a complete rejection of an existing
paradigm. What tends to happen in the Social Sciences, according to Kuhn’ wise
observation, is that this produces the coexistence of paradigms and the existence of
competing paradigms. These paradigms may share some assumptions and theories
while they may differ in others.
I will analyse three educational aspects which are currently experiencing a
paradigm shift. While, as will be examined upon in this chapter, here is a greater
consensus of opinion about what can be considered the first paradigm shift – that

82
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

which refers to Lifelong Learning – such consensus is far less clear in the case of
newer coined theories which are currently being propounded in relation to
Pedagogies and the Concept of Knowledge. In these two cases there is a clear
polarisation of stances between traditional and progressive academics (in the case
of the Pedagogies paradigm), and between modern and post-modern academics (in
the case of the paradigm related to the modes of knowledge creation in academia).
These three educational paradigms (Lifelong Learning, Pedagogies and the
Concept of Knowledge) are currently developing at all educational levels and,
particularly, at the university level. My main interest is to reflect on the broad and
key theoretical features of these paradigms rather than on their consequences
(which are deep) in university institutions. Nevertheless, the impact of these
themes on the university is clear. Concerning the Lifelong Learning paradigm, for
example, a number of documents from the European Commission insist on the role
of the university in the promotion of Lifelong Learning, whatever this may imply
in real terms for European universities (European Commission, 1998b, 2003,
2006).
Similarly, the Pedagogical Paradigm, in its progressive version, is being
particularly emphasised by the Bologna Process. Indeed, the Trends V report of the
European Universities Association, which informs the Bologna Process in a
significant way, states that “the most significant legacy of the process will be a
change of educational paradigm across the continent” (Crosier, Purser & Smidt,
2007, p. 7). These authors talk about a “metamorphosis of European Higher
Education” due to the Bologna process (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 15). Thus,
starting from the London Communiqué of 2007, this and later documents
pertaining to the Bologna process insist on “the transition towards student-centred
higher education and away from teacher driven provision” (European Union, 2007,
p. 15), even if, from a theoretical point of view, it is far from clear which of the
pedagogical paradigms (formalist or progressive) is best.
Lastly, the paradigm of the new mode of knowledge creation has deep
teleological and epistemological consequences for the university, which are
extensively reviewed in this analysis.
After the analysis of these pedagogical and epistemological paradigms, the
reader will be able to conclude and reflect on their concrete and extended impact in
relation to universities, and their potential benefit or risk for university education.

THE LIFELONG LEARNING PARADIGM

This paradigm presents, more so than others which will presented later, a
terminological and conceptual complexity which is far from being resolved. With
respect to the terminological delimitation of this paradigm, authors such as Torres
have underlined as many as 18 similar terms which are used in political speeches
and academic debates to describe the set of theories within the paradigm (i.e.
continuous education, recurring education, adult education, education for all,
permanent education, informal education, lifelong education, etc.) (Torres, 2003).
Undoubtedly, each of these terms contains particular meanings which are linked to
the specific socio-educational area of analysis.

83
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

In this way, and as a causal factor of the terminological diversity within this
paradigm, the difficulties which the paradigm presents in terms of its conceptual
delimitation must be underlined. Authors such as Gustavsson have said that the
main virtue of this paradigm is the “use of the paradigm as a vision” or project,
given its tendency to seem “empty of content“, without a clear strategy on how it
can be “applied in reality“ (Gustavsson, 1995, p. 92). While there is explicit
unanimous support for the rhetoric of this paradigm from international policies and
the countries concerned, some authors have denounced a “political sterility“ in the
scarcity and the limitations of those initiatives which have been launched by
various governments in relation to the multiple and revolutionary implications
which this paradigm suggests (Field, 2000, p. 23). This criticism is not unfounded
if one considers that the reforms currently being carried out in the western world in
relation to this paradigm are typically at the level of formal education (compulsory
and post-compulsory) and that they consistently and universally aim towards
guaranteeing education´s response to the economic and professional world through
strategies such as the introduction of skills and competences of a vocational nature
into curriculum. In this sense, it may be observed that the character and nature of
adopted measures have been left intact – at least until present. That being so, one
of the areas which, at least from a theoretical point of view, was to have received
far more attention and which should have experienced a far greater number of
changes was the area which has been referred to as ‘Adult Education’ thus far.
The most comprehensive definitions of this paradigm seem to concur
unreservedly that adult education is one of its most important priorities. Similarly,
one of the most prized and intrinsic attributes of this paradigm, the democratisation
of knowledge for all, considers adults as priority subjects of the political measures
conceived for its implementation. Even from a biased ‘economist’ interpretation of
this paradigm, adults constitute a priority group as, given the economic recession
which western economies are presently experiencing, countries need the
intellectual, academic and creative contribution of all members, not just from some
select sectors. Despite the real need for consideration and innovation in this
educational sector, several authors highlight that adult education continues to be “a
weak area, generally undervalued within the official educational scene“ (Giere &
Piet, 1997, pp. 3–4). As previously stated, this is due to the conceptual
vulnerability of this paradigm and the real political difficulties in enforcing a
concept which embraces such a wide and exigent scope and indeed, is difficult to
demarcate. One of the consequences of a biased and partial enforcement of this
paradigm is that it is impossible to achieve, at least in the short term, the ambitious
objectives and planned change within the culture of society.
Political backing of Lifelong Learning implies the adoption of new working
principles, some of which not only affect the area of education; they also filter into
and affect all governmental areas. One can best appreciate this fact in the
theoretical considerations stated by the academics and politicians of one of the
countries which have shown to be most active in the design and implementation of
the Lifelong Learning principles: Great Britain. Thus, with respect to the impact of
the Lifelong Learning principles in all governmental areas, one can say that this is
a case with principles of coherence, which have full government involvement and

84
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

responsibility, sanctioned by the Fryer Committee in the report ‘Learning in the

Twenty-First Century’ (NAGCELL, 1997). These principles confirm the vision
that the design and implementation of a Lifelong Learning strategy concerns the
entire government, not only the Department for Education, and the responsibility
for its development extends to include public authorities, social agents and
individuals. Other principles put forward by this committee relating to Lifelong
Learning concern equality, the primacy of people over structures, diversity and
variety, quality and flexibility, and efficient association (Ibid, pp. 28–31).
Similarly, this committee has outlined a set of government and social measures
which are necessary for the successful implementation of the objectives associated
with Lifelong Learning. Within these indications one would highlight the design of
a strategic framework, promoting a revolution of attitudes, a widening of
participation, recognition of the workplace, the community, voluntary
organisations and the home as privileged places of learning, the quest for
simplicity and integration, planning, association and collaboration, provision of
information, orientation and advice, use of information and communication
technologies and the design of financial measures (Ibid., pp. 4–9).
It is necessary to mention the origin and evolution of the Lifelong Learning
paradigm. It can be said that the current impetus behind Lifelong Learning on the
part of various official bodies is the result of a struggle for the recognition of this
reality which can be traced back to the first decades of the 20th century. Certainly,
the intellectual fermentation of the idea of Lifelong Learning – previously referred
to under the concept and terminology of Adult Education – goes back as far as the
end of World War I. It was at this time, in the second decade of the 20th century
that the debate on whether to extend human rights to women and to certain sectors
of the working class also had a profound influence on the political acceptance of
the concept of adult education (Field, 2000, pp. 4). This was the breeding ground
for the propagation of the idea that education could not continue to be the right of
only an elite group nor could it be confined to certain age groups. Thus, in 1919 a
committee for adult education which was set up by the British Ministry for
Reconstruction argued that:
Adult education must not be regarded as a luxury for a few exceptional
persons here and there, nor as a thing which concerns only a short span of
early manhood, but that adult education is a permanent national necessity, an
inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and
lifelong (quoted in Field, 2000, p. 55).
At this point, while these visions represented a wide liberal consensus with respect
to the new bases upon which citizenship was to rest, contextual aspects relating to
the economic crisis and labour unrest, which were then prevalent in western
countries, caused adult education policies to be relegated to the sidelines of a
system whose fundamental objective was the socialisation of young people.
The British case can didactically be used as an example of the historical
marginalisation that, in real terms, has been characteristic of Adult Education in
the context of Lifelong Learning strategy. Also current political efforts can be

85
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

noted of many western countries, not least Spain, which are devoting to overcome
the traditional ‘political sterility’ in the application of this concept and to achieve
concrete results such as, to give just one example, the academic recognition in
ECTS credits of learning that takes place in the workplace.
Only from the decade of the 70s did the idea of permanent learning begin to
permeate education policies and to have mid-term influence. The debates which
were prevalent in this decade concentrated mainly on the area of education
specialists within the framework of international organisations like UNESCO and
the OECD. In particular, UNESCO promoted a global debate which led to the
publication in 1972 of the Faure Report Learning to Be: the result of the reflections
of an international committee of experts presided over by the French Minister for
Education, Edgar Faure. The Faure Report marked a decisive moment in the
establishment of an official declaration on the part of UNESCO regarding the
principles which govern Lifelong Learning. The essentially humanistic concern
pointed to achievement through the flexible organisation of different educational
levels, the broadening of access to higher levels of education, the recognition of
informal and non-formal education to the same level as formal education, and the
introduction of new elements into school curriculum relating to subjects such as
health, cultural and environmental education. From UNESCO’s point of view,
education should cover all aspects of life for all people, and not simply the school
or university period for a minority of privileged people. This report set the scene
for an optimistic phase in reform and international educational policy,
incorporating the concept of Lifelong Learning.
Opposing this humanistic vision, which encompassed the Lifelong Learning
philosophy promoted by UNESCO, was a divergent interpretation of this
paradigm: that of the OECD. That was expressed in terms of human capital and
mainly directed towards objectives to alleviate the economic crisis and the high
levels of unemployment in many western countries at the beginning of the 70s.
Thus, as opposed to the term Lifelong Learning, the OECD preferred the term
‘recurrent education’, proposing political measures specifically directed at a better
preparation of young people for the labour market, such as paid education leave –
ideas which were included at this point in several countries’ legislation, as in the
French Law of Continuous Education of 1971. In general terms, the humanist
ideals which inspired the vision of Lifelong Learning of the Faure Report and its
followers were replaced by a vision criticised by left-wing sectors as having
limited professionalism, concentrating mainly on measures to provide a more
productive and efficient workforce destined to increase national economic
competitiveness and improve overall lifestyle.
Both visions of Lifelong Learning – on the one hand, the promotion of an
educated citizen base, and on the other, the achievement of a competent and
competitive workforce – continue to influence modern policies. Thus, visions of
Lifelong Learning like those described in the Delors Report Learning: The
Treasure Within, support this concept as a democratic imperative aimed at human
development, social cohesion and the creation of a multicultural, inclusive and
caring global village. Alongside teleologies like this, others co-exist which reduce
this reality to conventional policies relating to post-compulsory education. This is

86
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

the case of the English White Paper published in 1998: Permanent Learning,
which refers to the role of learning in terms of its fundamental contribution to the
future economic status of the nation.
In any case, whichever objective within this paradigm is favoured, it is clear that
most western societies are subject to the economic processes of globalisation and
transformation by the new information technologies, with the resulting social and
cultural changes, which call for the need for education policies to be based on this
paradigm.
The vast majority of western educational policies are coming out strongly in
favour of the implementation of Lifelong Learning in their education and labour
systems. Such is the present importance of Lifelong Learning that this new
paradigm has been considered the fourth educational revolution in recent history
(1990–2030) (Jones, 1995, p. 150), following those relating to the universalisation
of primary education (1870–1900), of secondary education (1945–1990), and of
tertiary education (1970–2010).
There is one aspect of the Lifelong Learning paradigm which deserves further
scrutiny, and it is the relation between Lifelong Learning and the social functions
of education such as “social change“ and “social control“. As pointed out earlier,
Lifelong Learning intrinsically possesses the imperative of the democratisation of
knowledge for all society. This means that Lifelong Learning explicitly embodies
education’s function of social change. Authors such as Coffield have established
that Lifelong Learning constitutes “the ultimate form of social control of education
systems” (1999, pp. 9–10). One might say that Lifelong Learning not only
constitutes the ultimate form of social control but also the definitive form, taking
into account the extensive and universal reach of this educational mode. Invariably,
however, academics who study this paradigm refer to the social exclusion which is
generated and perpetuated by this paradigm (Field, 2000, pp. 101–131).
Specifically, these same academics wonder how and to what extent Lifelong
Learning can have the potential for promoting and even legitimating social
inequality. This doubt suggests that Lifelong Learning can mean the closing of
options for those people who supposedly lack skills, increasing the distance
between those who have high academic qualifications and those who have none,
and this can generate new pressures in the most vulnerable, possibly leading to
social exclusion. As Field has argued, lifelong learning constitutes a new
mechanism of exclusion and control which empowers some people but also creates
new and categorical inequalities (2000, p. x).
Different national reports on the effects of the learning society on social
inequality have established that “a collateral effect of the substantial improvement
in global participation in the last two decades has been the widening of the gap
between those with education and those without“ (House of Commons Education
and Employment Select Committee, 1999).
In sum, it can be stated that, on the one hand, both the theoretical and practical
relevance of the Lifelong Learning paradigm has been sanctioned worldwide by
the recognition of its status as the fourth educational revolution in recent history.
On the other hand, the different countries are devoting efforts to overcome the
conceptual complexity and vulnerability characteristic of this paradigm. In this

87
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

sense, two key areas remain as crucial dimensions in need of more political
attention: the field of adult education, and the further promotion of the function of
social change that is implicit in this paradigm.

NEW PEDAGOGIES

The classification of countries which has emerged from the different PISA studies
undertaken to date has led to an analysis of the prevailing pedagogical paradigms
in those countries most favoured by PISA. As a result, now considered to be
excellent educational systems and reference laboratories, countries such as Finland,
South Korea and Australia are in focus.
Joel Spring claims that in the 21st century education has experienced a
globalisation process which has caused education systems to become similar to
each other. One may argue that this similarity is due, more specifically, to the
structural aspects of these systems without extending to the matter of pedagogies,
an aspect within which there remains a traditional and vigorous debate between the
alternative paradigms of formalist and progressive pedagogy. Thus, in the matter of
the structural aspects of education systems, I agree with Spring on the phenomenon
of the
“globalisation of the bureaucratic school organisation, structured by age
groups, in which progress is marked by promotion between levels and
qualifications, the result of the combination of western imperialism in Asia,
Africa and America; the adoption of the Euro-American model of education
by Asian countries, Japan and China in particular; the activities of
international organisations, like the World Bank, the United Nations, and the
adaptation of traditional Islamic schools to the Euro-American educational
ladder” (Spring, 2006, p. 6).
In the area of pedagogy, two very differentiated paradigms may be highlighted,
which are shaped by formal pedagogies on the one hand and by progressive
pedagogies on the other. Spring defines formal pedagogy as being that which is
made up of “-pedagogical theories which support direct instruction; authoritarian
discipline in the classroom; promotion between classes based on courses and
evaluation; the existence of defined subjects which are taught separately, and
recitation and exercises” (Ibid.). Spring defines progressive pedagogy as “those
theories which emphasise learning by doing; instruction based on the interests and
activities of the student; the informal, self-regulated organisation of the classroom;
group work; and an integrated curriculum in which a learning activity teaches a set
of subjects such as reading, science, history, mathematics and geography“ (Ibid.).
Formalist education models are usually linked to education’s function of social
control in that they attempt to perpetuate and reproduce the virtues, knowledge and
the cultural and spiritual legacy of tradition. On the other hand, the models of
progressive education are associated with education’s function of social change in
that the objective is to prepare students to actively influence and modify the
direction of economic, political and social systems.

88
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

Throughout different decades there have been attempts to break with the formal
paradigm in education. In this sense, different forms of progressive education were
expressed in models which disagreed with formal schooling and its supposed
service to the nation state and industry. Thus, in South America, Paulo Freire
argued in favour of the use of dialogical methods in order to enable people to be
liberated from the ideology of nation state control and industrialisation, and to help
create new economic, political and social systems (Spring, 2006).
While there is certainly a theoretical link between different pedagogical models
and the aforementioned specific social functions of education, historical reality
shows alternative use of the different pedagogical models by a single country with
completely diverging economic, political and social aims. This goes to prove that,
in essence, alternative pedagogical paradigms are not linked to political ideologies.
As an example, there was use of progressive pedagogies in the USSR after the
1917 revolution which were destined to strengthen ‘Russification’ and the
workers’ awareness, in the polytechnic school. Later, there was use of formal
pedagogies which were strongly standardised and of great discipline in this same
country, in the Stalinist school, conceived to achieve the very same objectives
(Ibid.).
The paradigm of progressive pedagogy constitutes a term which covers a great
number of terminologies, institutions, ideas and practical innovations which, in
general terms, were systematised and unified by the Bureu International des Écoles
Nouvelles in 1899. As stated by the academic Del Pozo Andrés, the European
tradition of pedagogical reform on which the New School Movement is based rests
with authors of pedagogy from the 16th century, among which are – and special
mention can go to Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Froebel (Del Pozo Andrés,
2002, p. 190). Nevertheless, the economic-social context within which this
movement emerged is the end of the 19th Century, ‘with the problems associated
with industrialisation and urbanisation, the cultural and social modernisation of
cities (...) the development of new social classes such as the liberal middle class
(...) the expansion of increasingly more national school systems, controlled by the
State’ (Del Pozo Andrés, 2002, p. 191).
In her work, Del Pozo Andrés explains the importance of two factors which
contributed to the emergence of the New School: pedagogical optimism and the
“intense and widespread interest of the public in educational matters“ (Ibid.). I
have chosen to highlight these two factors in order to show that, far from becoming
patrimony of the progressive pedagogy paradigm, these axioms and facts are also
upheld by the formal pedagogy paradigm, which reveals blind faith in the power of
education and backs the universal interest of society as a whole: public powers,
society and parents, together, in education.
It is interesting to draw a comparison between the principles expressed and
defended by the two opposing paradigms because, in the education systems of the
21st century, elements from both systems can be seen.

89
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

Logocentrism Versus Paidocentrism

Logocentrism is an attribute of the formal pedagogy paradigm, and paidocentrism
is a characteristic feature of the progressive pedagogy paradigm.
The ‘traditional school’ has been dubbed as “-logocentric-“ (Ibid, p. 199), in
that it is assumed to be “-centred on content, on subjects and on programmes-“
(Ibid.). This model contrasts with the supposed paidocentric feature of the New
School, “focused on the child [...] to whom justice must be done, and based [...] on
the needs, interests and aspirations of the pupil“ (Ibid.). From a commonsense
point of view, the inherent goodness of each model and the benefit of including
elements of both models in educational practice can easily be seen. In fact, it is
obvious that the polarity logocentrism-paidocentrism cannot easily exist or
develop, in its purest state, in current western education. The ordinary current
school possesses, rather, elements of both paradigms. It is necessary to highlight
that formal pedagogy also respects the progressive evolution of the child. This
pedagogy model places special emphasis on the teaching of content, precisely
because of the desire to do the child justice, and owing to its interest in completely
forming a demanding person who is willing to expend effort, become educated and
cultivated, and prepare in becoming a responsible part of society. Content
constitutes the necessary tools for the development of all human faculties, powers
and virtues (i.e. will, memory, reason, etc.). Those who propose this model of
pedagogy defend the educational value of the word. But, implicitly, what guides
and motivates all actions within this pedagogical model is the gradual, personalised
and rigorous education of each pupil. This model does not negate the ‘interests’ of
the pupil: in a varied formal and extracurricular curriculum there is room for a
whole variety of subjects within which such interests can be found. However,
adults offer their condition as guides who have the necessary experience, skills and
vision to accompany the pupil in the different evolutionary phases until he reaches
maturity. The exponents of the formal pedagogy model certainly do not seek
exclusively the pupil’s academic success. While this objective is, of course,
considered to be desirable for all pupils, the ultimate goal of the education process
lies in the overall education of the person, in its different dimensions, including the
spiritual dimension.

Teacher-centrism Versus Paidocentrism

The formal pedagogy model sees the teacher as someone invested with authority: it
is his job to establish organisational norms and rules. Within the progressive
pedagogy paradigm, the teacher’s role is to orientate and motivate. My belief is
that it is necessary to demand that from both the teacher and the parents,
particularly in some contexts such as the Spanish education system. The lack of
discipline which is evident in schools in the early years of the 21st century
demonstrates the defects of a model within which both parents and teachers have
primarily had a friendship relationship with children, something which, to my
mind, has been a mistake. The welfare of the pupil requires the establishment of
rules and limits which are sensible and clear, but firm and which must be followed

90
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

by all. The adult, whether it is the parent or the teacher, as a grown-up person who
is responsible for the child’s education, must ensure that these limits are respected.
Formal pedagogy models like that which is found in Finland reveal that adults are
to be seen as references, particularly the teachers, from a position of authority. This
does not imply the absence of real interest, both professional and affective, in each
one of the pupils.

Hierarchical Order Versus Democratic Teaching

The formal pedagogy model possesses a hierarchical view of the school
organisation. This model suggests that not all agents within the school have the
same competences, experience or responsibility, a view which I find entirely
reasonable. The perspective of formal pedagogy would argue for a professionalised
model of the school board, the success of which has been shown through its
development in educational systems like the one in Britain. The progressive
pedagogy paradigm argues for a democratic model of teaching which has led some
academics to claim that “the real educator is not the teacher, but the community“
(Del Pozo Andrés, 2002, p. 197). It can be argued that the educational functions of
each school agent are more clearly laid out in the formal pedagogy model, and this
is a positive thing given the different preparation, roles, experience and
responsibility which each agent has. Not all people can or should have the same
influence in education, taking this diversity into account. The educational effect of
the community, which has an undeniable influence on the pupil, simply must not
take over or be a substitute for the influence of the teacher. The successful Finnish
educational system clearly takes into account the importance of the teacher’s role.
It carries out a hard and rigorous selection process of teaching candidates, through
two difficult selection tests, one at national level, after which only 30% of the
candidates are finally accepted. The McKinsey Report has highlighted that one of
the key factors in the best 10 education systems, showing the best results in the
PISA report, is the very strict selection process for teaching candidates (Barber &
Mourshed, 2007, p. 13). Academics like the Finnish Rauni Räsänen state that in
Finnish schools “there is no doubt who is coordinating the pupils’ work” (2006,
p. 24). Finnish teachers describe themselves as role models for pupils, keeping a
professional distance from pupils and maintaining order and safety in the
classroom. When academics make reference to Finnish teachers, they speak of
conservatism, authoritarianism or professionalism, where teachers who are sure of
themselves and decide which methods they consider best for their pupils,
irrespective of what may be fashionable at the time (Ibid.). Finnish teachers have
maintained more authority than their peers in other Nordic countries, and Finnish
students have been more accepting of this authority.

The Role of Memory Versus the Role of Experience, Activity and Reason
It must be highlight that the formal pedagogy paradigm gives an important role to
memory, whilst not undermining other areas or human faculties, such as reason.

91
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

The formal pedagogy model states that in order to have knowledge, it is not
sufficient to understand; it is necessary to cultivate memory in order to increase the
quality of experiences and the capacity to make solid and well grounded
judgements.
Expert historians have placed the end of the New School as an organised
movement in 1939 or in 1955 (1939 for European currents, 1955 for the US) (Del
Pozo Andrés, 2002, p. 189). However, some of the elements of this pedagogy are
visible in the work of some subsequent pedagogy professionals such as Paulo
Freire and Henry A. Giroux. In the same vein, nowadays there are school models,
like that of the Waldorf-Schulen in Germany, which would fit perfectly with this
movement. And finally, elements of this pedagogy are present in some school
legislation, and in some educational and organisational elements of current
schools.
It is noteworthy that the dialectic between formal and progressive pedagogy still
exists in these first years of the 21st century. Despite the fact that western political
tendencies, in what academics call recent “post-modern“ times (Rust, 1991), seem
to favour and encourage innovative and reformist educational policies, the
pedagogical practices followed by countries which boast excellent education
systems like Finland and South Korea defend the value of the educational
attributes of formal pedagogy. Finland possesses a comprehensive school led by
conservative teachers who develop traditional teaching methods. In South Korea,
education is marked by the legacy of Confucianism which, in educational terms,
shows characteristics typical of the formal education paradigm, such as the strong
status of the teacher, school work based on content and examinations (rather than
on processes) and an emphasis on memorising (Kim, 2009). These two successful
countries have shown that educational tradition has proven that it possesses valid
elements which must not be modified by newly founded educational paradigms or
by transitory pedagogical fads.
In sum, it can be stated that, in the first years of the 21st century, the debate
between the alternative paradigms of formalist and progressive pedagogy continues
as vigorously as in some decades ago. Some expert academics seem to advocate
progressive pedagogy principles (see Crook, 2011). Others seem to praise the
virtues implicit in the principles and instruments of the formalist pedagogy (see
Garcia Ruiz, 2010). Historically, there have been abuses in the pedagogical
practice of both types of pedagogical approaches. I can cite the ‘Tyndale school
scandal’ as an example of abuse of the progressive pedagogy approach in Britain,
as well as ‘La Mala Educación’ [Bad Education], a Spanish film directed by Pedro
Almodóvar, portraying abusive practices of the formalist pedagogy during the
Franco dictatorship.
Examinations of methodologies, whatever their breath, point towards
considerations for the development of a mixed approach of both methodologies in
the pedagogical process.

92
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

NEW CONCEPTION OF KNOWLEDGE

In the era of globalisation, universities are some of the institutions which are being
most subjected to political and social scrutiny. Also being subjected to intense
analysis are the sets of processes which take place within university activities and,
in particular, the nature of the process of knowledge creation. Post-modern
academics are the authors who most vigorously defend the radical nature of the
change in universities and the dynamics of knowledge creation; a transformation
which is questioned by modernist academics.
Academics like Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott and Trow
(1994) have identified the massification of teaching and research as the crucial
factor of current transformations which are taking place in universities and their
processes. Among the changes which have taken place in universities due to the
massification of education and research, the most noteworthy are those which have
occurred in knowledge production methods (Ibid, pp. 79–80).
There is a series of epistemological tendencies which draw attention to the
existence of change in how knowledge is produced in contemporary society.
Alongside the traditional disciplinary method of knowledge production (Mode 1),
there is a new method (Mode 2), created in wider social, political and economic
transdisciplinary contexts. Mode 1 encompasses a set of ideas, methods, values and
cognitive and social norms which ratify the goodness of the Newtonian model of
knowledge production and which legitimate the character and nature of the
epistemological development of institutions. Mode 2 is configured by a series of
coherent and stable attributes which testify to the plausibility of a socially
distributed and heterogeneous model of knowledge creation, in which some
parameters relating to the epistemological nature of knowledge are yet to be
defined, such as the entity of the quality of knowledge.
Mode 2 knowledge emerged due to the massification of higher education which
began after World War II. The number of graduates from higher education
institutions with a strong capacity for research has been in excess of what can be
absorbed by those institutions. These graduates have consequently carried out their
research activities in a great number of alternative social institutions, creating the
emergence of a large contingent of social institutions competing with universities
in their function of knowledge creation.
Modes 1 and 2 knowledge production possess essentially different features.
Thus, Mode 1 knowledge production is generated in a disciplinary context
governed by the academic interests of a specific community. It also possesses
characteristics such as homogeneity and hierarchy. Opposing these attributes,
Mode 2 tends to emerge in a context of application, heterogeneity, absence of
hierarchy, transience, and social responsibility.
The apparent growth in importance of Mode 2 knowledge production carries
certain implications for traditional academia which requires a more detailed study.
The first of these implications touches the organisational, functional and
teleological ethos of higher education institutions. Proponents and defenders of
Mode 2 knowledge production argue in favour of the functional and teleological
reconsideration of traditional universities. These same proponents praise those

93
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

further education institutions which already function within the new parameters of
change – something which is clearly seen in the new kind of staff they employ and
in the specific collaborative agreements which they reach. Thus, a paradigmatic
institution which would be acceptable to supporters of Mode 2 knowledge
production and its demand for innovation would be the British University for
Industry, for example. And, by the same token, an institution which would be at
the other extreme of permeability demanded of academic institutions in the
21st century by these authors would be the University of Oxford, for instance. The
emblematic character of these two institutions of such opposing ethos graphically
exemplifies the great polarity of the modern versus post-modern debate which is
current in the academic world. Without wishing to choose a closed, fixed,
immovable position in favour of the academic university tradition, it seems
inevitable that the possible predominance of Mode 2 in the western academic
world would mean the triumph of the post-modern model of higher education and,
in a wider context, of the aforementioned model in the understanding of the world
and of man. This model possesses, in my opinion, unknown factors and
implications of a relativistic, present and transitory nature which are far from
possessing the weight and existential guarantees which the traditional modernist
doctrine offers.
A second implication of Mode 2 knowledge production is its greater affinity
with empirical and applied sciences (aeronautical and chemical engineering,
computer sciences, etc.) than with others such as the Humanities, which it would
remodel with a view to it being more socially responsive. Thus, in this same sense,
“the nature of the problems addressed by Mode 2 is changing and transitory“
(Gibbons et al., 1997, p. 18). In other words, it is a doctrine and practice, contrary
to the Humanities’ epistemological practices, which cyclically and constantly
reinterpret the same entity of human problems in light of the context of current
contexts. I believe that it is arguable that the Humanities should have its
investigative ethos modified in order to better respond to the demands of post-
modern assumptions. These sciences owe their existence to profound and recurrent
humanistic concerns, much more so than to a socio-historic current which many
academics claim neither to recognise nor to agree with, as is the case of Filmer
(Ibid, 1997, pp. 48–58). Alongside this implication which can be deduced from the
assumptions of Mode 2 knowledge production, there is another epistemological
imperative within Mode 2 which distorts the academic mission and practices which
are traditionally prevalent in the socio-historical university. I refer to the attribute
of responsibility which impregnates the process of knowledge production in
Mode 2. By virtue of this social feature, the decision regarding research priorities
moves from the hands of the academic community to the political, social and
economic field which contextualises the area within which academia takes place.
Thus, and using this logic, it becomes absolutely essential that university research
be concerned with a series of issues which are in vogue, such as those concerned
with environmental, health and social issues, rather than other, less “popular”
issues from a social or political point of view. This means that, as opposed to the
logical approach in the ‘modern’ practice, in which the university governs the
destiny of the society within which it operates, the post-modern system strips the

94
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

university system of its privileged governing position and, instead, relegates the
university to a subsidiary mission in which it must respond to the particular
parameters dictated by the most urgent political, social and economic
requirements. My rather divergent position with respect to the change of status of
the university institution and of the academics who make up the institution is not
merely concerned with the loss of social position from a top place to being merely
an instrument. My disagreement with this proposal is due to my conviction that it
should be the most cultivated social group, the academic community, which guides
the social and political class with regard to the most suitable human destinies, and
that western society should not be steered by urgency or changing contingencies of
sporadic issues of interest to current social and political groups who lack long-term
vision and social policy.
The Humanities essentially have the role of creating culture, values and
meaning for all human experience. Through their links with the culture industry,
the Humanities configure, in a real and convincing way, western society lifestyles,
values and political culture. Due to the social importance of the Humanities it is
appropriate to dedicate some time to the relationship between the epistemology of
these sciences and the new Mode 2 knowledge production.
The relationship between the Humanities and the new Mode 2 knowledge
production is complex and ambivalent. Thus, on the one hand, one may say, in
accordance with Gibbons et al.’s observations and, reflecting on current social
practices, that features of Mode 2 knowledge production can be found in the
Humanities. Among the coincidences and similarities in both forms of knowledge
production are the expansion of production, social responsibility,
transdisciplinarity, the increasingly significant role of marketing and the
permeability of the boundaries between university and scientific systems on the
one hand and between society and the economy on the other. The impact which
political, economic and social systems currently have on the university system are
few and specific. For example, in that quality control is no longer determined by
the academic community or specific expert communities, but rather by external
sources, using broader criteria. This has been very noticeable in recent years in the
governmental agencies’ demands on scientific journals. In the past, periodicals
were managed in their various publishing and quality aspects by a group of experts
who led the creation and development of specific scientific journals. Nevertheless,
the last few years have seen the emergence of government agencies such as The
Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (la Fundación Española para la
Ciencia y la Tecnología – FECYT). These organisations impose their qualitative
criteria on the academics who manage these different scientific publications, with a
view of ensuring that they conform to certain criteria related to evaluation,
professionalisation, information quality, publishing processes, scientific quality,
diffusion and visibility, accessibility and internationalisation. The goal of these
publishing policies is to increase the evaluation, publishing professionalism and
conformity with international scientific indicators. Additionally, a series of
bibliometric indices has been created, such as INRECs or RESH, which provide
statistical information on bibliographical references cited, with the objective of
evaluating the importance, influence and impact of scientific journals, of articles

95
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

published therein and of authors´ academic institutions. The reference models are
those established by commercial publishing companies such as the Web of
Science. The objective of these measures is to increase visibility,
internationalisation and the impact of the periodicals, with the ultimate aim of
enhancing the international reputation of the science developed in the country of
origin. The data bases of the ISI, and particularly the Thomson Reuters’ Social
Science Citation Index (SSCI) have become the paradigm of what constitutes good
practice in the development and creation of science. University publishing groups
have very limited autonomy compared to that which they enjoyed in the past and
they are obliged to invest considerable academic and management effort into
ensuring that their publications meet the publishing criteria required by
commercial publishing companies which are considered to be reputable.
The political interventionism in the area of journal publishing undoubtedly
reveals the impact of Mode 2 attributes in the realm of the Humanities, and the
participation of the latter in the demands of this method. However, the same
proponents of the rise of Mode 2 knowledge production question the full
participation of the Humanities in Mode 2’s way of ‘making science’. The
Humanities are seen as being slightly conservative, “-pre-industrial and even anti-
industrial-“ (Gibbons et al., 1997, p. 125) which results in them not fully
participating in the post-modern trends in culture and in their fragmentary,
relativist and ephemeral derivations, which have sprung-up in parallel with the
current post-industrial transformation of the economy. Some trends at the heart of
the Humanities participate in and stimulate the conservative and traditional ethos in
academia. These sciences have emerged at a time of social fragmentation and
economic change when the intention was to emphasise traditional values, as a way
of countering post-industrial atomisation. Gibbons et al. demonstrate how it was
precisely at a time of great deregulation of the financial markets and privatisation
of large parts of the welfare state in the 1980s that the cultural literacy movement
took firm root in the US. At this time, British schools introduced a national
curriculum for the first time and socialist France began to return to old educational
values, presented as republican virtues (Ibid, pp. 139–140).
The demands that Mode 2 knowledge production imposes in the university
institution reveal the extent to which the neoliberal paradigms of responsivity and
performativity, promoted by the Thatcherian era in a context of economic
recession, govern the current university. There is an array of institutional changes
that have been signalled as imminent by experts, including an increase of
transdisciplinary approaches, an increase in interactions among science,
technology and social themes; the emergence of extrascientific criteria in the
determination of research priorities; the development of a participative science;
the multifunctionality of universities, and the hybrid character of quality control of
the scientific production (Ibid, pp. 180–181).
For some of us, it seems as if the post-modern epistemological onslaught tries to
approximate the university institution to that of recently emerged knowledge
production institutions, which develop a diversity of functions and which interact
with other agencies such as industry. In the current times of economic crises, the
modern university attribute of ‘disinterestedness’ (Filmer, 1997, p. 57), necessary

96
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

for the construction of a coherent and long-term science, constitutes a luxury that
governments cannot afford. The non-hierarchical character of Mode 2 knowledge
production, a conception that extends also to its social and cultural idea of this
same character, determines what has been termed the “pluralisation of the elite
function” (Gibbons et al., 1997). This points to the erosion of the university’s
attribute as the greatest epistemological expert of society. Now, according to
economic and political criteria, governments create new bureaucratic committees
with the aim of granting a label of excellence to institutions that comply with new
government-formulated extrascientific criteria. The themes of academic study must
include, in order to obtain research finance, ‘hybrid forms’ of disciplinary work
(Gibbons et al., 1997, p. 192) and socially relevant issues close to the everyday
context that contribute to resolve problems of the real world.
Post-modern epistemological trends also pose certain demands on members of
the academic community. Academics are asked to assume multiple cognitive
identities in order to develop transdisciplinary work. It is far from clear how an
academic must combine the attributes of ‘symbolic-analyst’ of wide and polyvalent
education, with the specialisation demanded by the deep study of the disciplinary
field in which he develops his daily work.
The claim that I make in this paper about the ethos and modern and traditional
function of the university has nothing to do with an institutional resistance to the
adaptation to new times. The bet I make for the development of the classical
attributes of the academic function is pinned on my vision that the mission of the
university lies in the search for truth and the shaping of the fates of society,
supported and rooted in a tradition and in an epistemological heritage of centuries,
that has the capacity of discerning the best present and future way forward to achieve
human solidarity and happiness. This important university mission can only be
accomplished by academics if they are allowed to develop their task without
attending to strict impositions and changing determinants of the political and, above
all, the economic world. Indeed in times of economic crisis, the university must also
contribute advice and counselling to governments. But if the university is asked in an
imposed and compulsory way to modify its ethos and traditional social mission,
society will suffer in the long-term from a moral and social impoverishment due to
this economic and epistemological reductionism. I do not consider that the university
and the adaptation of its organisational and epistemological practices should be put
on the same level to what has been developed by newer institutions – they simply
have different missions and functions.
The transformation of knowledge production has brought great changes in
political thought. Two decades ago, political thought in relation to science pointed
to the development of the scientific production, delegating key decisions to
scientists who undertook them regarding the discipline’s intrinsic developments.
The western economic crisis that began at the end of the ‘70s prompted a
substantial change of political thought in relation to science. The new scientific
policy points to industrial innovation and competition, and strong claims for the
role of science in national and international economic growth.
The political field itself has experienced substantial changes: in the
configuration of the political thought experts and industrialists now intervene.

97
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

Scientific priorities are generated in hybrid forms composed by a diversity of

actors and hold a social dimension. The new scientific policy of Mode 2
knowledge production is based in persons and competence. It promoted
transdisciplinarity and international cooperation. It administers the connexion
between competence and collaboration. It promotes permeability and the growth of
international networks. It tends to face potential imbalance between institutional
volatility and permanence. It promotes diversity and experimentation and
creativity. It conceives specialities with a multidisciplinary character and oriented
towards problem solution.
The proponents of the growth of Mode 2 knowledge production state that the
new policy will need different institutions-, more dynamic, that promote innovative
networks and are subjected to periodical evaluation. I agree with the proposal of
Gibbons et al. in relation to the need to take into account brand new and newly-
coined institutions which also submit to performativity and responsiveness needs
of the economic field. In recent years, university institutions have experienced the
demands of evaluative agencies such as the Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la
Calidad y la Acreditación (ANECA). This being so, universities must hold a
degree of autonomy in order to develop their educational task and their training of
‘symbolic-analysts’: persons whose analytical excellence of information and
knowledge is only brought about by a solid and lengthy education. Essentially,
universities must also fulfil the knowledge society´s demands and certain
academics alert to the risk of folding education so rigidly towards professional
demands. This can result in “a loss of the essential and divergent intellectual
energy needed to produce forms of thought and creativity that underlie the
applications oriented to the market” (King, 2004, p. 55).
Among the themes of future interest and concern, I can underline two. The first
is the nature and composition of professional identities. The second is the
contribution of socially distributed knowledge to the increase of world inequality,
in terms of access and use of the results of scientific activity. Not all world
societies have the infrastructure and means to participate in the benefits of Mode 2
knowledge production. This democratic deficit of Mode 2 knowledge production
threatens, in the very context of the constitution of the knowledge society, to
“transform education in an oligarchic good” (Ball, 2006, p. 69).
In sum, it can be stated that, in academia, Modes 1 and 2 knowledge
production currently coexist. Mode 2 knowledge production – and, more broadly,
post-modern epistemological proposals – possesses certain epistemological
implications with regard to the teleology of the university and in relation to the
humanities which are far from clear or, should I say, from what I understand is
convenient for the long-term mission of the university in respect to the
university’s shaping of the fates of society. From my point of view, the radical
post-modern epistemological proposals tend to arrive at destructive visions
regarding “the death of the university” (Smith & Webster, 1997, p. 106) in the
same way as other post-modern reflections (i.e. ‘the deconstruction of art’ –
criticised by Habermas, 1988; or ‘the death of God’ –criticised by Sotelo, 2003)
tend to destroy modern world creations before having had enough time to
formulate or propose any worldwide accepted ‘Post-modern Project’.

98
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

CONCLUSIONS

Globalisation, the expansion of the so-called new technologies and the social,
political and economic changes which have resulted from these processes, have
sparked an educational debate and a questioning by post-modern academics of
the suitability of traditional attitudes and paradigms in education. Thus, at this
time, there is abundant literature which analyses the theoretical basis and the
educative practice of three fundamental paradigms: Lifelong Learning, Pedagogies
and the Concept of Knowledge.
With regard to the paradigm of Lifelong Learning, unanimous political,
academic and social support for its general assumptions is noteworthy. These
assumptions, however, are somewhat ambiguous and clearly difficult to apply in
practice. Similarly, in the theoretical treatment of this paradigm, there are two very
different approaches: the humanistic and the professionalist. This makes the
theoretical articulation and the concrete implementation difficult. The greatest
difficulty in putting Lifelong Learning into practice is that the theory itself creates
an academic, social and digital gap, which is completely opposed to the democratic
vocation which gave rise to its creation.
In the area of Pedagogy, in the first years of the 21st century, one can see the
co-existence in education systems, education legislation and educational practice
of elements of both pedagogical models – the formal and the progressive. Some
analyses of excellent education systems (e.g. Finland, South Korea) have
uncovered a greater presence within the systems of specific elements of formal
pedagogy, especially those linked to teacher centrism and to hierarchical order. It
would be desirable to have both visions working side by side in current education
given the presence of positive elements in both perspectives. Education systems
which are considered to be very important at present, such as the Finnish system,
demonstrate the importance of preserving two characteristics in education systems
as a guarantee of educational quality: social consensus and a balance between
continuity and change, ensuring that nothing of proven educational worth is
modified. Finland represents a patent example that tradition does work.
Finally, with reference to knowledge production methods, I believe that it is still
something of a mystery why Mode 2 knowledge production has been implemented
and extended in the academic world. The existence of institutional and academic
models of such diverse epistemological practices as the University of Oxford and
the British University of Industry indicates that both forms of knowledge creation
may co-exist rather than moving gradually from Mode 1 towards Mode 2. In any
case, there are some issues of supreme importance, relating to the status of
different sciences, to epistemological problems approached by academia, and to
the future of our academic societies and our periodicals. These issues should be
more widely debated in order to evaluate the possibly harmful effect of blindly
adopting Mode 2 knowledge production in universities. One of the most important
implications, in this sense, lies in the shift in relation to the conception of what the
university is in its essence and what its mission with respect to society should be as
a result of adopting Mode 2 knowledge production. The University cannot

99
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

renounce its social role which gave rise and meaning to its creation: to teach its
students to think critically about the society in which the institution exists.
A second implication of the new socially distributed knowledge production
deals with the constitution of a new body of political thought in relation to science,
by which institutions are submitted to imperatives of innovation and responsivity
towards the economic field.
Finally, I must underline the democratic deficit of Mode 2 knowledge
production. This is a contradictory feature in relation to the socially distributed
character of the new epistemology, and also in relation to the attribute of “global
knowledge society” by which policies name the current gnoseological status of the
contemporary world.

REFERENCES

Ball, S. (2006). The education debate. London: Policy Press.

Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world´s best-performing school systems come out on top.
McKinsey and Company. Retrieved from: http://mckinseyonsocieety.com/downloads/reports/
Education/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf
Coffield, F. (1999). Introduction: Lifelong learning as a new form of social control? In F. Coffield,
(Ed). Why´s the beer always stronger up north? Studies of lifelong learning in Europe. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Crook, D. (2011). Standards in English education: an enduring historical issue, Revista Española de
Educación Comparada, 18, 61–88.
Crosier, D., Purser, L. & Smidt, H. (2007). Trends V: Universities shaping the European higher
education area. Brussels, European University Association.
Dale, R. (2007). Specifying globalization effects on national policy. In B. Lingard & J Ozga, Education
policy and politics. London: Routledge.
Del Pozo Andrés, M. M. (2002). El movimiento de la escuela nueva y la renovación de los sistemas
educativos [The new school mouvement and the renewal of education systems]. In A. Tiana Ferrer,
G. Ossenbach Satuer & F. Sanz Fernández (Coord.), Historia de la Educación (Edad
Contemporánea) [History of education (modern times)]. Madrid, Universidad Nacional de
Educación a Distancia, UNED.
European Commission (1998a). Learning for active citizenship. Brussels.
European Commission (1998b). European Cooperation in quality quality assurance in higher
education. Brussels.
European Commission (2003). The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge. Brussels.
European Commission (2006). Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities – Education,
research and innovation. Brussels.
European Union (2007). London Communiqué – Towards the European higher education area:
Responding to the challenges in a globalised world. London.
Field, J. (2000). Lifelong learning and the new educational order. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Fillmer, P. (1997). Disinterestedness and the modern university. In A. Smith && F. Webster (Eds.). The
postmodern university? Contested vision of higher education in society. Buckingham: The Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
García Ruiz, M. J. (2010). Estudio comparativo de la educación en Finlandia y en la Comunidad de
Madrid. Análisis y recomendaciones [Comparative study of education in Finland and the
Community of Madrid. Analysis and recommendations]. Madrid: Comunidad de Madrid.
Gibbons, M. (2004). Globalization, innovation and socially robust knowledge. In R. King, The
university in the global age. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

100
 PEDAGOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS IN THE UNIVERSITY

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C. Nowotny, H., Schwartman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The new
production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London:
Sage Publications.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1997). La nueva
producción del conocimiento. La dinámica de la ciencia y la investigación en las sociedades
contemporáneas [The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in
contemporary societies]. Barcelona: Ediciones Pomares-Corredor.
Giere, U. & Piet, M. (1997). Adult learning in a world at risk: Emerging policies and strategies.
Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.
Gustavsson, B. (1995). Lifelong learning reconsidered. In M. Klasson, J. Mannienen, S. & B. Wahlgren
(Eds.). Social change and adult education research. Linköping: Linköping University.
Habermas, J. (1988). Modernidad versus postmodernidad [Modernity versus postmodernity]. In J. Picó,
Modernidad y postmodernidad. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Holmes, B. (1986). ‘Paradigm shifts in Comparative Education’. In P. G. Altbach & G. P. Kelly, New
approaches to Compasrative Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
House of Commons Education and Employment Select Committee (1999). Access for all? A survey of
post-16 participation. 8th report. London: The Stationery Office.
Kim, T. (2009). Confucianism, modernities and knowledge: China, South Korea and Japan. In
R. Cowen and A. M. Kazamias (Eds.). International handbook of Comparative Education. London:
Springer.
National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning (NAGCELL) (1997).
Learning for the twenty-first century. First report of the National Advisory Group for Continuing
Education and Lifelong Learning (Fryer Committee). London: Department for Education and Skills.
Pedró, F. & Rolo, J. M. (1998). Los sistemas educativos iberoamericanos en el contexto de la
globalización. Interrogantes y oportunidades [Latin American education systems in the context of
globalisation. Questions and opportunities]. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 17, 257–289.
Puelles Benítez, M. de (2006). Problemas actuales de política educativa [Current issues in education
policy]. Madrid: Morata.
Räsänen, R. (2006). Quality education – A small nation´s investment for the future (Unpublished
teaching material for teacher education). Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Rust, V. D. (1991). ‘Postmodernism and its Comparative Education implications’, Comparative
Education Review, 35, 610–626.
Select Committee on Education and Employment (1999). Eighth Report Access for All? A survey of
post-16 participation. London: House of Commons.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmeduemp/57.
Smith, A. & Wesber, F. (Eds.) (1997). The postmodern university? Contested visions of higher
education in society. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and
Open University Press.
Sotelo Martínez, I. (2003). La invención de Europa: la realidad histórico-cultural de Europa [Inventing
Europe. Historical-cultural reality of Europe]. In AA.VV. Actas del Simposio de Barcelona: La
formación de europeos [Proceedings from the Barcelona symposium: Europeans’ education.
Madrid: Academia Europea de Ciencias y Artes.
Spring, J. (2006). Pedagogies of globalization. The rise of the educational security state. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Sursock, A. & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010 – A decade of change in European higher education.
Brussels: European Universities Association.
Torres, R. M. (2003). Aprendizaje a lo largo de toda la vida: un nuevo momento y una nueva
oportunidad para el aprendizaje y la educación básica de adultos en el sur [Lifelong learning: A
new momentum and a new opportunity for learning and adult basic in the south]. Stockholm:
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).

101
M. J. GARCÍA RUIZ

María José García Ruiz

Associate Professor of Comparative Education
Faculty of Education
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)

102
 DAVID COULBY

6. THE DECLINE OF EUROPE AND ITS IMPACT

INTRODUCTION

This paper is divided into three parts. The first outlines the argument for the
relative and absolute decline of Europe in economic and political terms. The
second suggests the implications for school and university knowledge that
arise from the (re-) emergence of other epistemic centres and other modes of
discourse and discovery. The final part tentatively considers the wider implications
for education, internationally, that may possibly follow from the decline of Europe.

EUROPE: THE LONG RETREAT

Of course The Decline of the West has been polemicised before, famously by
Spengler and T. S. Eliot. But much has happened since The Wasteland was
published on the brink of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Allies’ breakthrough
on the Western Front. With the implementation of the Versailles settlement and the
withdrawal of the USA from the newly formed League of Nations, the European
states, although divided, would seem to have remained clearly in the ascendant. In
the 90 years since then, there have been two interconnected developments: the
decline in the economic and political might of the European states and the rise of
other powers. This section considers each of these strands in turn and concludes
with a consideration of the ways in which Europeans have attempted both to
counter them and distort them.
The audit is initially one of imperial dissolution. Defeat and revolution brought
the end of the Russian, Prussian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. In the
case of the Soviet Union, Germany and, arguably, Kemmalist Turkey, new, great
powers would arise from the imperial demise. The days when the Balkans could be
the playground for powers in Vienna and Istanbul had passed, though not, as it
transpired, those when Berlin and Moscow could attempt to partition Poland
amongst themselves. The French appeared to emerge victorious from the Great
War, but Verdun and the Chemin des Dames had elicited a colossal price in men,
materials and morale. After Verdun France effectively ceased to be a great power,
as events on the Maginot line, at Dien Bien Phu and on the streets of Algiers were
to prove. The 1920s and ‘30s were the years of the maximum territorial extent of
British power. A vast swathe of Asia, from Persia to Thailand remained under
imperial control. But England’s miraculous industrial ascendancy had long passed;
exports and revenues were in catastrophic decline. The wealth of the Industrial

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 103–112.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
D. COULBY

Revolution had been squandered at the Somme and Passchendaele. The Raj had
become a classical example of Marlovian over-reach (Kennedy, 1988). Three years
after, the defeat of the Third Reich India would (re-) gain independence.
Thereafter, the Union Jack was ceremoniously lowered across Asia, Africa, the
Pacific and Latin America.
Imperial decline did not necessarily mean the immediate ending of great power.
World War II was only too tragically to prove the colossal reach of Germany, the
UK and the USSR. The resulting impoverishment exposed the hollowness of the
British Empire. Defeat and shame destroyed any vestigial German imperial
ambitions. By its massive sacrifice of blood and treasure, the Soviet Union had
become the new imperial power in Europe. Against this the post-war period saw a
reversal in the economic decline of the western European states. Most remarkably,
the Federal Republic of Germany picked itself up from Tag Nul to become an
economic superpower by the beginning of the 1970s. The economies of the
Netherlands, Italy, France and even the UK all flourished in this period. Apart
from consumer durables and petroleum-based infrastructure, this wealth and
associated influence were converted into two tangible components of great power
status: the nuclear weapons of the UK and France and the formation of the (now)
European Union (EU). Nuclear weapons and the mythically associated
continuation of permanent seats on the UN Security Council have provided France
and the UK with the flattering semblance of a power which has long since
disappeared elsewhere. Nuclear weapons did not help France preserve Indo-China
or Algeria. The UK had sufficient good sense, or insufficient resources, not to
involve itself in such harsh post-imperial conflicts. In the case of both states it is
hard to imagine a war in which these weapons could actually be utilised or even
where the threat of their deployment could deter an aggressor. In the case of the
UK, the reliance on American nuclear technology may well account for its active
support for the more incautious of its ally’s recent military adventures.
In terms of non-European powers, it is the USA, the USSR-Russia and the
People’s Republic of China that fall to be considered. Despite the isolationism of
the 1920s, the rise to global power of the USA has been inexorable since Woodrow
Wilson brought the New World to redress the balance of the Old in 1917. Immense
wealth and continental resources have brought the USA armed forces in all three
services that are unsurpassed in terms of their extent, materials and training.
Although its forces may be outnumbered by the People’s Liberation Army, their
equipment and the global reach of the bases they control (think only of the Sixth
Fleet) give the USA an unmatched international deployability. In terms of soft
power this has brought the USA unrivalled, and often irresponsible, international
influence. But in terms of hard power it brought, at best, stalemate in Korea and
humiliating defeat in Vietnam. Since the break-up of the USSR in 1981 this hard
power has been unmatched and, so far, unchallenged. The recklessness and futility
with which this power has been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan should in no way
disguise its extent.
The Soviet Union rose and fell across the 20th century (Hosking, 1992;
Politkovskaya, 2004). Russia is left with a rusting nuclear arsenal, vast mineral

104
 THE DECLINE OF EUROPE AND ITS IMPACT

resources, especially hydrocarbons, a declining, demoralised and impoverished

population, ethnic conflict along its southern borders, uneasy relationships with
other former constituents of the USSR (the Baltic States as well as Georgia) and a
charade-democracy. The Russia of the murdered Politkovskaya seems more remote
from the rest of Europe than that of Tolstoi and Borodin, though both engaged in
intermittent conflict in the Caucasus. It is tempting to conclude that in 2010 Russia
is neither European nor a great power. But if history has a lesson it is that this
country and its people should never be under-estimated. A major task for both
Russia and Europe in this century will be to find some mutual accommodation
that goes beyond Cold War uncertainty, hydrocarbon triumphalism and EU-
expansionist self-satisfaction. Russia and Turkey both ask the questions of identity
and global role that for decades the EU has been unable to hear.
When the UK took Hong Kong as part of the unequal treaties at the conclusion
of the Second Opium War it must have been unimaginable that the day would
come when it would be forced to give it back. It is only 61 years since Mao
declared that China was no longer on its knees. The Korean War substantiated this
claim and, despite the self-inflicted paroxysms of the Great Leap Forward and the
Cultural Revolution, the second-half of the 20th century witnessed the steady (re-)
emergence of China. By 2010 China had surpassed the UK and Germany to
become the world’s third biggest economy (It is now on the brink of surpassing
Japan and becoming the second). This wealth is not being squandered on costly
overseas adventures, although the PRC remains acutely sensitive about (not only)
Xin Yian, Tibet and Taiwan (Fewsmith, 2001; Studwell, 2003; Tyler, 2004).
Rather, it is being used to further a foreign policy which ensures the continued
supply of raw materials, and build a knowledge economy infrastructure (note the
rapid expansion of university provision). When diplomats in the Forbidden City or
the White House talk about the G2 they are no longer joking.
Events of the last decade evidence the gradual recession of European power.
The counter-intuitive admission of Cyprus into the EU, before satisfactory
arrangements for unification had been made, has proved to be sanguine. Neither
the UN nor the EU itself has succeeded in brokering an agreement. The wars of the
dissolution of Yugoslavia had proved the impotence of the EU on its own borders;
Cyprus has brought unresolved conflict actually within the Union. Connected to
this lack of reach is the EU’s unresolved attitude towards Turkey itself. Opposition
to Turkish membership seems to mark the turn in the tide of EU expansion and
self-confidence. The notions of cultural homogeneity, a Christian Europe or
geographical boundaries betray ill-concealed racism and a parochial notion of
European history and identity. The lack of confidence in the EU project manifested
by significant populations (France and the Netherlands as well as Ireland) in the
referenda on the constitution and the Lisbon Treaty reflect a wider lack of vision
about the European future. Meanwhile Turkey will not wait for Germany, France
and Austria to overcome their delicacies but is building a role for itself in the
Turkic lands and the Middle East (Ahmad, 2003; Clark, 2007; Kandiyoti &
Saktanber, 2002; Mango, 2004; Mazower, 2005). The commercial and diplomatic
bridge that Turkey could provide to these areas is currently lost to the EU. In

105
D. COULBY

Moscow, politicians ponder what kind of rich, powerless, xenophobic hyper-power

they have on their border. The pro-Russian 2010 election result in Ukraine
indicates that the EU is no longer seen as the predestined paradise for countries
along its borders.
The ways in which European states have sought to counter and deny the decline
in their power include the French and British nuclear arsenals, already mentioned,
as well as the myth of The West and the formation and expansion of the EU. The
myth of The West – that there is somehow an identity of ideals and policies
between the European states and the USA – is held most strongly in the UK, where
it even seems to have survived the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of the
UK this involves the concept of the ‘special relationship’ whereby Blair followed
Bush into war in Iraq and Afghanistan and got nothing whatsoever in return in
terms of Middle Eastern peace initiatives. But, despite the tensions caused by the
policies of previous president Bush, this myth is widely held across the EU and, for
most of those states, is institutionalised through NATO membership. President
Obama is doing his best to dispel the myth, both by marginalising European states
and by focussing on other areas (China, Russia still and Latin America). But the
myth conceals the growing powerlessness of European states so it is likely to be
tenaciously held.
The emerging weaknesses of the EU have already been mentioned. In some
ways they are surprising: the EU is substantially the biggest economic block in the
world and the momentum of its expansion seemed to be hurrying it ever-forwards.
But the project has not carried the populations of the states with it, especially not in
Western Europe where petty nationalisms have emerged and thrived (Flanders,
Scotland, Lombardy, Cataluña) at the expense of any notion of supernationalism.
The euro currency had seemed to be the emerging success-story of the EU but key
players, Sweden as well as the UK, refused to adopt and it is currently undermined
by fears of debt default by some of the Mediterranean members. The EU
proliferates foreign-spokespersons, and indeed presidents, at the same time as it
increasingly lacks anything coherent and unified to say. With both its own
populations and its Atlantic allies its credibility seems to be in terminal decline.
But its continuation and, all be it less majestic expansion (Croatia soon, surely),
provide European states with the illusion of power and security. The 12 gold stars
flutter proudly across the continent as China builds the roads and railways that will
link it to the Indian Ocean and completes bilateral trade deals with countries across
Asia and Africa.

THE EUROPEAN KNOWLEDGE CONTEST

Naval and military technology, navigational and chronometric skills, the greed-
driven mercantile and capitalist modes of production and distribution, the immense
consumption surplus provided by the Industrial Revolution: these are some of the
forces behind the European imperialist expansion which speeded-up towards the
end of the 18th century. As part of this process, ideas, as well as goods and people
began to flow from Europe to America, Africa, Asia and Australasia. Eventually

106
 THE DECLINE OF EUROPE AND ITS IMPACT

these flows would prove to work in both directions. But the extent of Europe’s
epistemological colonisation needs to be acknowledged. The export of Catholicism
by especially Spain but also Portugal to America has had an enduring effect on the
way of life and systems of belief and knowledge on most of that continent. This
was achieved through gross violence to the indigenous people of that continent and
to their culture. Tenochtitlan was systematically destroyed so that Mexico City
could be built (Cortes, 1991; De Las Casas, 1992; Diaz, 1963; Thomas, 2004). The
export of the Spanish and Portuguese languages was almost as widespread and
effective. When England (later, the UK) began its process of colonial adventure
followed by imperial expansion, its exports included language and a certain
concept of order as well as cheap cotton goods. Education was part of this concept
of order. This ambition went well beyond providing schooling for settler-children
or mission schools for the indigenous people. Universities were founded early at
both Harvard and Calcutta.
The imperial powers differed in the knowledge they considered important to
export. Despite the religious motivation of the settler movement to North America,
the conversion of the indigenous people was not a strong motivation, though this,
of course, did not mean that they were any more humanely treated. The Dutch
settlement of Batavia had less influence on local linguistic priorities than the
British in Madras (Chenai). The French sought to bind their colonies most closely
to the state and most overtly saw themselves as engaged on a civilising mission to
bring the greatness of French culture to the benighted natives. For the more cynical
of colonial exploiters, ‘the white man’s burden’ was little more than a legitimation
and pretext for unequal trade and theft; but for administrators and teachers, it was a
rationale for serious intervention in the epistemic and cultural systems of
indigenous people. Just as colonising powers differed in the force of their
epistemological imperialism, people in other continents differed in their capacity to
resist. China and Japan proved initially powerless against the naval and military
technology of Europe and the USA, but in terms of knowledge and culture, they
were highly resistant.
The resulting international curricular audit is exceptionally complex and
differential in terms of first and other languages, the role of religion, the
importance of local as against imperial knowledge, culture and history, as well as
the prominence and nature of science and technology. Even within states, it may be
fractured by area, religion, wealth, first language or colonial legacy. The
generalisations of this paragraph are, then, necessarily sweeping. European
epistemological exports have included language, religion, culture (classical music
as well as literature, architecture and art), a concept of history as linear and
potentially providential, science, technology, medicine, engineering, and a notion
of law as being ideally, universally and equally applicable. These form components
of school and university curricular systems across the continents. Perhaps above all
there is an isomorphic tendency in the reproduction of how things may best be
managed: a shop, an airline, a university, a legal system. This may be reflected in
the viral spread of the MBA but, more pervasively, it is there at the level of taken-
for-granted knowledge.

107
D. COULBY

The ongoing process of globalisation (Coulby & Zambeta, 2005; Darwin, 2008;
Khanna, 2009; Pereyra, 2008; Suzuki, 2008) is resulting in greater wealth and self-
confidence in countries that have previously been the victims of imperialism. The
2008 Beijing Olympics are locus classicus here, as were the Tokyo Games as
Japan emerged as a world economic superpower (1964). But similar manifestations
of empowerment are evident in states from Brazil to India and Viet Nam. As
Europe’s political and economic grip has weakened this new wealth and self-
confidence has resulted, among many other things, in a re-assessment of the nature
and importance of knowledge. The simplest and currently most important
manifestation of this has been the realisation that states can compete with Europe
not only in political and economic terms but also in terms of level and
specialisation of knowledge. Universities in, at least, Japan, China, Singapore and
South Africa (to say nothing of the USA and Australia) are now seeking to teach
the same level of science and technology as in Europe, to teach them to more
people and to teach them better. The expansion of universities in China has
followed that in Japan. In both cases it has resulted in not only a mass system but
the (re?-) emergence of elite institutions (Beijing University, Todai) that can
challenge Europe in the quality of their graduates and the capacity of their
research.
This development has the capacity to undermine the elite status that European
states have carved-out for themselves within the structure of globalisation. The
international division of labour currently has an item of clothing or a television
designed in Europe and manufactured in the Philippines, China or Thailand. The
associated advertising and marketing programme will be launched from Europe at
an international market. The success of European companies in niching their
products as luxury or high-end is an emblem of this process. Financial and legal
activities associated with the products will be conducted in the eastern seaboard of
the USA or in London. The most remunerative activities, the ones resulting in most
company and personal profit are thus concentrated in Europe (and the USA); the
sweatshops are elsewhere. The expansion, beyond Europe, of educational
provision and especially universities is a deliberate policy attempt by emergent
countries to challenge this structure. This particularly characterises Asian countries
and is a recognised feature of the economically most successful states; Japan, Hong
Kong, South Korea and Singapore. Again at a symbolic level, it is interesting that
Japanese luxury products – fashion and whisky as well as cars and electronics –
have succeeded in establishing an international brand. It is important to stress here
that these educational developments are not designed to challenge the nature of
European knowledge, rather their intention is to rival the success of European
institutions, on their own terms. The aim is not to generate an alternative
technology but rather superior practitioners and researchers of the same
technology.
The success of the Asian countries named above is part of the developing
pattern of globalisation. It has so far provided partners in European (and American)
economic hegemony but has not threatened the structural nature of that dominance.
But the rapid expansion and improvement of technical capacity in the demographic

108
 THE DECLINE OF EUROPE AND ITS IMPACT

giants of China and potentially India could challenge European hegemony. The
irony is that European universities are themselves playing a key role in the erosion
of their own dominance and that of their state’s technical, managerial and
marketing capacity. Chinese and Indian students are currently studying in
European (especially UK) universities in subjects such as Art and Design as well
as Science, Technology and Management. Often these students are successful in
their own country and intend to go back to set-up or strengthen family businesses
or to work for a transnational corporation. Characteristically, they will be taking a
one- or two-year masters course in such subjects as International Corporate Law,
Fashion Design and Manufacture or Material Sciences with Metallurgy. UK
universities are increasingly collaborating with institutions, especially in China, in
order to offer their degrees ‘in-country’. Several UK (and Australian) universities
have now developed full-status campuses to teach their course in China. To the
extent that Europe’s hold on the knowledge economy depends on the level and
nature of knowledge which it previously monopolised, this grip is in the process of
being loosened.
The process of globalisation itself is increasingly becoming a technological and
epistemological race between Europe (and the USA) on the one hand and China
and India, to identify the most prominent competitors, on the other. This race is to
be ahead in advanced manufacturing, design, scientific and technical research,
management, and higher education itself. Without venturing too far into
educational determinism, it is not hard to see how the international rankings of
universities reflect the (knowledge) economic strength of the states in which they
are situated. In UK terms, what are at stake are the international status and
economic success of such products as Rolls Royce aero engines, Ted Baker
fashion and Oxford University. When Europe lags in this race for the highest
levels of creativity and research, Milanese fashion houses will be manufacturing
clothes designed by Delhi couturiers and smart German engineering students will
be competing for places at Todai University. The competition over the
reproduction of European knowledge is likely to influence fundamentally the next
stages of the process of globalisation. But this contest is still within the
isomorphic moment of European knowledge. What if that moment itself is in the
process of passing?

BEYOND EUROPEAN KNOWLEDGE

European knowledge hegemony is not only being challenged in its own terms. The
very assumptions of that knowledge are coming under threat. Whilst European
knowledge can hardly have been said to have eliminated other systems – it was
remarkably unsuccessful with Islamic and Hindu religions, for instance, or with
Confucian beliefs and practices – it did seem, briefly, in some countries to have
silenced or marginalised them. With the decline in European influence other forces
have become operant on the production and distribution of world knowledge. As
globalisation progresses these forces are not only states. Three examples are
examined in this final section: China, Islam and transnational corporations.

109
D. COULBY

China has had little difficulty in accommodating itself to many aspects of

European knowledge. The whole science-technology paradigm is largely
unchallenged. The Chinese have shown a perhaps surprising enthusiasm for
European classical music and instrument-playing as well as for selected
components of the sporting tradition. Despite the vigorous political thinking that
followed the 1911 Revolution, China has not shown any marked enthusiasm either
for democracy or for notions of individual liberty, so enthusiastically advocated by
one aspect of the European tradition. The influence of the Communist Party is
obviously central here but it is also increasingly clear that the Party is able to draw
on deep traditions of China’s own culture. Duty to parents, those in authority
(mandarins) and the state (emperor) are part of a Confucian tradition that dates
back millennia before 1947. Loyalty to the family and the community, rather than
the European commitment to self-development and aggrandisation, are key-
components of Chinese identity. Since Mao’s death, elements of Confucian
teaching have gradually (re-) appeared in education at school-level. In Beijing and
Shanghai several Confucian shrines, as well as Buddhist temples, are now (re-)
open and receive practitioners as well as curious visitors. As China’s influence in
Asia and Africa increases it is likely that European ideals of government and
individuality, the role of the state and what it is to be a person, will be increasingly
challenged. One of the myths of Europe is that history is progressing so that the
ideals of the Enlightenment will be available to an increasing number of people in
more areas of the world. Whilst this is not proving to be the case, some of China’s
ideals may surpass those of many European states. Mao’s assertion that women
hold up half the sky has been a powerful driver on policy, not least in education.
Indeed some commentators (Sen, 2006) see China’s capacity to educate its girls
and young women, and thereby double its productive capacity, as being one of the
causes of its extra-ordinary growth. Given the position of women at the beginning
of the Communist period, this has been a remarkable achievement and contrasts
strongly with the experience of girls and women in democratic India.
It was largely the work of Islamic scholars at universities such as Al Azhar in
Cairo who kept alive the thinking of the classical philosophers and scientists so
that it became (re-) available to Europeans in the period of the Renaissance.
Similarly, when the Ottoman armies arrived outside the walls of Vienna, few
Europeans would have argued the superiority of Islamic learning in military
technology and many other areas (metal manufacture, ceramics, gardening,
cartography) (Findley, 2005; Lewis, 2000; Rodenbeck, 1998; Wheatcroft, 2004).
The current Western stereotype of Islamic knowledge as parochial, theocentric
inerrancy is far from the historical case. Islam has self-confidence in the integrity
of its own epistemological tradition. As in the case of China, this can provide a
vigorous challenge to the thinking of the European Enlightenment: in this case, in
terms of science and knowledge itself, as well as the nature of authority and the
state, and the understanding of history. This is not to applaud the education of girls
in Islamic, theocratic states, nor the treatment of women more generally, nor is it
an apology for the teaching of religion, philosophy and politics at schools and
universities in these states. Since the rise of Islam in 632 CE there have been many

110
 THE DECLINE OF EUROPE AND ITS IMPACT

critical encounters between Europe and Islam (the fall of the Iberian Peninsula in
711, the end of Byzantium in 1453, the British massacres that accompanied the
suppression of the Mahdi’s revolt in Sudan in 1881) and it seems that another such
dangerous phase may have been reached. The two civilisations sit uneasily
alongside each other still in the East End of London as well as Cyprus and Bosnia.
But this is not to endorse some fundamentalist notion of the clash of civilisations.
In the longue durée Islam and Europe have learned from each other. As the power
of European knowledge wanes, that may again prove to be the case.
Transnational corporations are operant on the creation and distribution of
knowledge in a variety of ways, most obviously through their research and
development capacities in which they frequently collaborate with universities in
such matters as product design, military technology and pharmaceuticals. This
cooperation is not always harmonious and transnational corporations have a record
of suppressing uncomfortable research findings as well as withholding data from
their competitors. But it is the politicisation of knowledge by these corporations
with which this paper concludes. The hydrocarbons extraction and refinement
industries maintain geopolitical lobbies, not least in Washington. The purpose of
these lobbies can be, for instance, to ease the way to the granting of permission for
oil or gas extraction in environmentally sensitive sites. As the crisis of climate
change becomes more generally known and understood, regrettably, it has
increasingly become the role of these lobbies to attempt to undermine the veracity
of scientific research. The corporations seem to believe that their profits are in
danger if the international market for hydrocarbons is challenged by social
demands that attempt to slow down climatic change. An alternative response
would have been for these corporations to have put themselves at the centre of the
production of clean energy. The last decade has seen both BP (Beyond Petroleum)
and Shell grapple with this possibility and then reject it. Instead they, along with
other extractors, refiners and distributors, have spent millions on lobbyists whose
role is to persuade politicians and journalists that climate change is somehow not
actually happening. In a recent example, a minor academic spat centred on The
University of East Anglia in the UK was blown-up into an international scandal,
and even respectable media involved themselves in making the case against
climate change. European science and technology on the one hand and capitalist
enterprise on the other have been locked in a contradictory embrace since the
‘Dark Satanic Mills’ of the Industrial Revolution. It is important to remember that
several of these corporations now have annual revenues that far exceed states’ like
Belgium or Denmark: their power in the legitimation of knowledge is accordingly
substantial. As the European moment passes, even scientific knowledge becomes
more relative, frangible and vulnerable to economic manipulation.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, F. (2003). Turkey: The quest for identity. Oxford: Oneworld.

Clark, B. (2007). Twice a stranger: How mass expulsion forged modern Greece and Turkey. London:
Granta Books.

111
D. COULBY

Cortes, H. (1991). Five letters to the emperor 1519–1526. (J. Bayard Morris, Trans.). New York:
W. W. Norton & Company.
Coulby, D. & Zambeta, E. (Eds.). (2005). World yearbook of education 2005: Education, globalisation
and nationalism. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Darwin, J. (2008). After Tamerlane: The rise & fall of global empires, 1400–2000. London: Penguin.
De Las Casas, B. (1992). A short account of the destruction of the Indies. (N. Griffin, Trans.).
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Diaz, B. (1963). The conquest of New Spain. (J. M. Cohen, Trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Fewsmith, J. (2001). China since Tiananmen: The politics of transition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Findley, C. V. (2005). The Turks in world history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hosking, G. (1992). A history of the Soviet Union 1917–1991: Final edition. London: Fontana Press.
Kandiyoti, D. & Saktanber, A. (Eds.). (2002). Fragments of culture: The everyday of modern Turkey.
London: I. B. Tauris & Co.
Kennedy, P. (1988). The rise and fall of the great powers. London: Unwin Hyman.
Khanna, P. (2009). The second world: How emerging powers are redefining global competition in the
twenty first century. London: Penguin.
Lewis, B. (2000). The Middle East: 2000 years of history from the rise of Christianity to the present
day. London: Phoenix.
Mango, A. (2004). The Turks today. London: John Murray.
Mazower, M. (2005). Salonica, city of ghosts: Christians, Muslims and Jews 1430–1950. London:
Harper Perennial.
Pereyra, M. A. (Ed.). (2008). Changing knowledge and education: Communities, mobilities and new
policies in global societies. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Politkovskaya, A. (2004). Putin’s Russia. London: The Harvill Press.
Rodenbeck, M. (1998). Cairo: The city victorious. London: Picador.
Sen, A. (2006). The argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian culture, history and identity. London:
Penguin.
Studwell, J. (2003). The China dream: The elusive quest for the greatest untapped market on earth.
London: Profile Books.
Suzuki, S. (2008). Towards learning beyond nation-states: Where and how? Conflicting paradigms of
nationalism: East Asia and Europe. In M. A. Pereyra (Ed.), Changing Knowledge and Education:
Communities, Mobilities and New Policies in Global Societies. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Thomas, H. (2004). Rivers of gold: The rise of the Spanish Empire. London: Phoenix.
Tyler, C. (2004). Wild West China: The untold story of a frontier land. London: John Murray.
Wheatcroft, A. (2004). Infidels: A history of the conflict between Christendom and Islam. London:
Penguin.

David Coulby
Professor of Education
Bath Spa University

112
 HANS-GEORG KOTTHOFF AND KATHARINA MAAG MERKI

7. GOVERNANCE MATTERS? CHANGING

SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN
EUROPE
Empirical Effects and Challenges for School Development

INTRODUCTION

School matters – teachers matter – governance matters? After years of concentration

on the importance of schools (Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer & Wisenbaker,
1979; Mortimore, Sammons, Stoll & Ecob, 1988) and teachers (OECD, 2004) for
the quality of student learning in schools, the focus of international educational
research has shifted once again to the system level of education systems and, in
particular, to the question of how school systems can be ‘governed’ to guarantee an
optimal learning environment for students and pupils. This is certainly not a new
focus in educational research, which leads to the question of why it re-emerged in
recent years. The re-awakened international interest in new school governing
concepts has partly been caused by the ever decreasing financial resources for
education witnessed over the last ten years. The constant decrease of financial
resources has aroused the interest of society and policy and turned it towards
knowing more about how well these resources have been invested in education and
whether set targets have been attained. In addition, new administrative concepts like
“New Public Management” (NPM) (Dubs, 1996) have supported the idea of
analysing educational institutions from a market economy point of view and
regarding them as special public enterprises, which should be given a certain
freedom while at the same time, be controlled with respect to the quality of their
target achievement through systematic output control. While new steering concepts
like NPM have consistently gained ground in education, the effectiveness of
traditional steering concepts like input steering through, for example, curricula or
teaching materials, have increasingly been questioned through research on
governance which has shown that public systems cannot be steered top-down on the
basis of a linear process (Altrichter & Heinrich, 2005; Benz, 2004). New steering
concepts are based on the assumption that control of output – in contrast to
regulation of input – is more effective for the achievement of targets and quality
development in education. Setting targets and aims which schools have to attain is
therefore gaining primary importance.

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 113–131.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
H.-G. KOTTHOFF AND K. MAAG MERKI

In the German-speaking education systems, one of the main reasons for the
renewed interest in new school governance is that international comparative
assessment studies like PISA have shattered the belief, in Germany and
Switzerland for instance, that the quality of their education systems is world-
leading. Even if there are some legitimate points of criticism regarding PISA’s
underlying concept of Bildung (e.g. Benner, 2002; Messner, 2003) and some
rather controversial discussions regarding PISA’s methodological approach
(e.g. Hopmann, Brinek & Retzl, 2007), we have never had such a detailed
empirically-based picture of the performance of school students in various
countries before, and this picture does not always – at least with regards to
Germany – match-up with long-held beliefs. Alongside these comparative
assessment studies, there is a growing number of international comparative studies
on the features of more or less successful education systems (e.g. Döbert & Sroka,
2004), which are motivated by the assumption that these studies can perhaps help
us to understand in a more systematic way, just how ‘successful’ education
systems are governed and how we can foster school development and, with this
newly acquired understanding, develop quality in education. The results of these
international comparative analyses seem to indicate that school systems which are
successful in large-scale assessments, such as PISA, show certain characteristic
features which have until recently not been implemented in German-speaking
education systems (Döbert, 2005; Döbert & Fuchs, 2005).
This paper aims to explore and analyse the main features of the newly
implemented models of school governance in Europe, and understand and discuss the
complex relationship between school governance and school development. Since the
middle of the 1990s there has been a substantial change in school governance
throughout most European education systems. These reforms have been based on the
assumption that new steering concepts and systems of educational governance are
more effective for the achievement of targets and will have a beneficial effect on the
development of quality in schools and in school system as a whole. This paper aims
to examine this assumption by analysing the empirical effects of relevant steering
instruments on school development and student learning. On the basis of the
empirical results presented, firstly, the argument put forward will be that the
relationship between differing models of school governance and school development
is, at present, rather unclear or under-researched, respectively, and that the
introduction of ‘new’ models of school governance is therefore a rather risky
enterprise. Secondly, we will discuss some challenges which have to be considered
and resolved, so that the implementation of new models of school governance can, in
the future, have a beneficial effect on school development and student learning.

‘EDUCATIONAL GOVERNANCE’ AS A THEORETICAL POINT OF DEPARTURE

To begin with, we will briefly outline the main assumptions of the ‘Educational
Governance’ perspective which serves as our theoretical point of departure for the
ensuing analysis of school governing systems. Present research on ‘governance’ in
education is firmly rooted in the assumption that public systems cannot be steered
top-down on the basis of a linear process. The introduction of the term ‘educational

114
 CHANGING SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

governance’ is the result of a paradigm shift, which could be summarised in the

following way: ‘From the linear steering of a single actor to the interactive
collective action of different groups of actors’.
If we try to identify the factors which are of central importance for the quality of
student learning in schools, Fend’s model of ‘supply and utilisation’ (Fend, 1998)
seems to be particularly useful. In his model, high quality schooling can only be
attained if the ‘supply’ of learning opportunities and resources, which are provided
by teachers and schools, are matched, to a high degree, with the real learning needs
and abilities of the students who will then utilise these opportunities and resources
to learn. This ‘perfect match’ of supply and demand requires local decision-making
power for teachers and schools, so that they may match curricular offerings to the
needs of students and pupils.

(Fend, 1998)

The model exemplifies that the picture of the lonely captain, who steers his boat
from A to B, is not a suitable image for describing school processes in achieving
and maintaining high quality student learning. Quality in schools is not the
achievement of a single person (e.g. the head teacher) or a single institution (e.g.
the ministry of education), which decides how and with which resources a certain
aim is to be achieved. Instead, it is the result of different actors and therefore, of
the co-operation or rather, of the ‘co-production’ of educational policy and
administration, school inspection, teachers, students and parents together. From the
‘educational governance’ perspective, the steering of public systems such as the
education system has to be conceptualised and understood as an interactive
collective action of different groups of actors which work within horizontal
network-like relationships (Altrichter & Maag Merki, 2010; Benz, 2004). Although
the overall aims of the education system are defined by central authorities, the
ways in which these goals are achieved are, to a certain extent, chosen and/or
designed by schools.

115
H.-G. KOTTHOFF AND K. MAAG MERKI

The described paradigm shift is represented by the use of the term ‘governance’.
Thus, the term indicates the realisation or awareness that steering and control cannot
be understood as one-sided and unilateral activities of one competent institution (e.g.
the state), but rather, they must be considered as processes of interaction between
collective actors or groups of actors. This means that governments and
administrations cannot fulfil their functions and tasks in an autonomous manner; they
operate only through co-operation with other actors. While the term ‘governance’
originates from the fields of sociology and policy studies, the term ‘educational
governance’ systematically refers to the fields of education and educational sciences.
Central concepts within this educational research perspective are the notions of
different ‘actors’ who operate within a given education system, the representation of
education systems as ‘multi-level systems’, and the notion of ‘mutual dependencies’
between the various actors within and across the different levels.
On the basis of these assumptions, educational governance research takes a
particular interest in how (joint) action is organised between different actors, how
different actors deal with existing dependencies from other actors and how actors
organise and co-ordinate action either together, with, or in separation from other
actors. However, educational governance research does not only take an interest in
the nature of relationships and dependencies between different actors; it also
examines the effects of the action of individual actors and the effects that
interaction between actors have on the organisation of schools, the teaching and the
performance of students (Kussau & Brüsemeister, 2007). In all these analyses, it is
assumed that educational reforms, which are imposed from ‘above’ or ‘top-down’,
cannot be implemented in a linear mode; they need to be “re-contextualised”
(Fend, 2006). This means that, for example, new regulations which are obligatory
for schools and teachers (e.g. the introduction of school self-evaluation) must be
considered in their regional and local context and that they will be adopted and
transformed according to local needs when they descend from the ministerial level
to the local school authority or the school itself.

‘NEW’ SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE: SIMILAR FEATURES – DIFFERENT

MODELS

On the basis of these assumptions and concepts of the Educational Governance

perspective, many European education systems have developed new governing and
monitoring systems in recent years. From a comparative perspective, it is striking
that these monitoring concepts appear to be rather similar at first sight, even if the
education systems have a completely different school governance tradition. Yet
despite marked differences between the traditional way of governing and
monitoring education systems, most European countries currently seem to
converge around common trends and share the following comparable features
(e.g. Altrichter & Maag Merki, 2010; Burkard & Eikenbusch, 2002):
− Increased autonomy: Schools are attributed a limited degree of autonomy with
regards to individual aspects, in order to develop their own school profile according
to the expectations of the school authorities and the requirements of their pupils.

116
 CHANGING SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

− Core curricula and standards: Central authorities develop specifications in term

of core curricula and educational standards, i.e. competences, which students
must acquire by a set point in time. The achievement of the given objectives
occurs in several steps.
− School programme/profile and evaluation: Firstly, schools are required to
develop an individual profile and set up an internal system of quality
management so that their work can be systematically evaluated with regards to
their target achievements.
− Central standardised tests, state-wide exit examinations: In addition to this
internal monitoring system (outlined above), an external monitoring system is
developed. Pupils and students are subjected to state-wide standardised tests and
exit examinations. Schools are required to deal with these test and examination
results and introduce suitable measures if deficits in certain areas of their
performance surface.
− External school inspections: Another monitoring instrument, the carrying-out of
school inspections, is performed by an external authority and can focus on the
performance of students and/or the performance of a school. Again, the same
principle applies. Results from external inspections are provided as feedback to
a school and the school has to react by taking suitable action to remedy
(possible) deficits.
− Teacher appraisal: Finally, teachers can be subjected to appraisals. With
regards to the conclusions drawn from an appraisal and subsequent
consequences for a teacher, the mode is similar in most European education
systems: based on the teacher appraisal results, objectives are defined and
suitable support and in-service training measures are introduced, wherever
necessary.
While at first sight the main features and instruments of the new governing and
monitoring concept appear to be rather similar in most European education
systems, a closer look at the underlying educational governance models reveals
that school governance models of some European education systems vary
systematically from each other, despite their apparently similar governance
features. In the following section we will try to illustrate this paradox with
reference to three selected European education systems. For our analysis we will
look at the German, the Swiss and the English education systems, because, at
present, they share the above-mentioned school governance features, while in the
past they have been characterised by a distinctly different approach to school
governance, which can be summarised in the following way: Germany and
Switzerland, on the one hand, represent traditionally central European education
systems, which are – on the level of the ‘Land’ or ‘Kanton’, respectively – rather
centralised, with a strong role of the state and a long tradition of input steering
through detailed rules and regulations. England, on the other hand, is
traditionally regarded as a decentralised education system with a strong tradition
of output-steering through central examinations, a high degree of autonomy for
individual schools and a resulting higher diversity between educational
institutions.

117
H.-G. KOTTHOFF AND K. MAAG MERKI

Taking-up Maroy’s (2008) differentiation between the “bureaucratic-professional

model” and the “post-bureaucratic model” of educational governance, we can
safely say, that the German, the Swiss and the English education systems are
departing, to varying degrees and with varying speeds, from the bureaucratic-
professional model of educational governance, which, according to Maroy, is
characterised by a combination of bureaucratic regulation and joint state-teacher
regulation:

National school systems were in fact constructed in the nineteenth and

twentieth centuries using an institutional and organisational model combining
bureaucratic components of a nation-state responsible for the education of the
people with professional components. […] the state set up a hierarchy and
controlled the conformity of all agents in the system by establishing rules and
procedures to follow. […] Nonetheless, in view of the complexity of
educational tasks to be accomplished, these bureaucratic characteristics have
always been associated with a large individual and group autonomy for
teachers, an autonomy founded on their expertise and professional skills
(Ibid., pp. 14–15).

Maroy’s further differentiation of the ‘post bureaucratic model’ into the ‘quasi
market model’ (Ball, 1993; Lauder & Hughes, 1999) and the ‘evaluative state
model’ (Broadfoot, 2000; Neave, 1988) will help elucidate the differences between
the governance models of the three education systems more clearly. In the ‘quasi-
market model’, “the state does not disappear”, according to Maroy:

It still has the important role of defining the objectives of the system and the
contents of the teaching curriculum. Yet it gives autonomy to choose the
proper means for carrying out these objectives to schools (or to local entities).
Additionally, to improve quality and respond to the various demands of users,
it installs a quasi-market system. The latter involves setting up free choice of
schools by users coupled with a financing of schools relative to the student
public they accept (financing on demand) (2008, p. 21).

In the ‘evaluative state model’, schools also enjoy greater autonomy with regards
to the curricular, pedagogical, financial and staff management; however, the state
defines the objectives that have to be achieved by individual schools and if the
schools reach these goals and thus fulfil their part of their contract with the state,
they are granted additional means. Goal achievement is permanently checked by
systematic and rigorous school evaluation:
What is aimed at then is a process of organisational and professional learning
that results in improving the quality of education in these local schools. […] In
any case, it involves the diffusion and acceptance of an ‘evaluation culture’
[…] relying as much on institutional self-evaluation by teams seeking to
improve their practice and results as on external evaluation (Ibid., p. 22).

118
 CHANGING SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

As a result, the major difference between these two models is, according to Maroy,
that:
…in the quasi-market model, it is above all competitive pressure through the
intervention of an ‘alerted’ user-parent that pushes the school to improve the
educational service rendered, whereas in the other model, regulation
happens more through the evaluation of processes and results and by
incitement or sanctions meted out to schools in terms of their progress and
results (Ibid., p. 23).
Applying this framework to the three education systems, the English school
governance model could be interpreted as a combination of both the ‘quasi market’
and the ‘evaluative state’ model. It supervises the performance of schools through
rigorous evaluation procedures and makes evaluation results public in order to
inform the users’/parents’ rational choice of school, in an educational quasi-market.
The Swiss and German governance models, on the other hand, could be characterised
as heading more directly towards the ‘evaluative state’ model, because it steers
through evaluation and results without relying additionally on market forces.

EFFECTS OF ‘NEW’ SCHOOL GOVERNANCE ON SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT:

THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

In theory the ‘post-bureaucratic model’ of educational governance described above

looks rather plausible because it combines different actors and groups of actors as
well as internal and external perspectives on school quality. In addition, it places a
strong emphasis on the individual school, which has to work with results from
different evaluations and is therefore regarded as the main ‘engine’ for school
development. However, how does this new governing model function in practice?
Does the model live up to the high expectations placed on it and what is the
empirical evidence available in relation to these questions?
If we take a look at the various empirical studies available, it becomes clear that the
functioning of the newly implemented systems of school governance – as a whole –
has not yet been researched empirically or comprehensively. This does not come
as a surprise because – particularly in education systems with a long tradition of
the ‘bureaucratic-professional model’ of school governance like Switzerland and
Germany – the implementation-span of the ‘post-bureaucratic model’ has been too
short to research the effects of change, empirically. However, there are already
empirical studies on specific aspects and individual features of the newly implemented
school governance model. These can serve at least as an initial basis to help us estimate
the plausibility of the concept of school governance as a whole, as they will also
indicate which aspects of the concept will need particular attention for the successful
implementation of the model in the future. Thus, in the absence of comprehensive
empirical studies on the effects of whole new systems of school governance, this paper
will focus on empirical evidence in relation to the effects of specific monitoring
instruments, which – as we described above – play an important role in most European
school governance systems. These specific monitoring instruments are comparative
assessment studies, school inspections and state-wide exit examinations.

119
H.-G. KOTTHOFF AND K. MAAG MERKI

Monitoring Instrument ‘Comparative Assessment Studies’

Most European education systems are regularly taking part in the international
large-scale assessment studies of the OECD. In addition, some countries are
conducting further comparative assessment studies on a national level. Various
scientific evaluations of these comparative assessment studies have shown that the
feedback of evaluation results or results from monitoring studies that is provided
back to schools does not automatically lead to school improvement nor to the
improvement of performance in pupils (e.g. Altrichter, 2010; Peek, 2004; Rolff,
2002; Schildkamp, Visscher & Luyten, 2009; Visscher & Coe, 2003). The
problems are not primarily related to the clarity of the feedback but to:
− the general attitude towards comparative assessment studies (e.g. Ditton,
Arnoldt & Bornemann, 2002; Schrader & Helmke, 2004);
− the usefulness of the feedback for the further development of the teaching and
learning process (e.g. Ditton, Arnoldt & Bornemann, 2002);
− the lack of a professional support system (e.g. Altrichter, 2008); and
− the transfer of these results into concrete actions in teaching and in schools
(e.g. Schrader & Helmke, 2004).
Schrader’s and Helmke’s study (2004), for example, which was conducted in the
context of an extensive comparative assessment study in mathematics showed the
following results, with regards to the question of how schools and teachers use
results which have been fed back to them: up to 35% of the teachers questioned
made changes in relation to individual aspects within the first year after the
feedback of the results, i.e. they adapted their teaching methods or worked on
their knowledge or skills deficits. About 10% of the teachers considered changes,
but more than half of them did not even consider any changes at all – nowhere
near to putting changes into practice. With regards to the quality management of
schools, the percentage of teachers who changed their behaviour was even lower:
only 10% of the teachers, at most, indicated that they were – for example –
preparing lessons together with other colleagues as a direct reaction to the
feedback of evaluation results. However, a comparison of extreme groups showed
that, in fact, teachers make use of comparative assessment studies results if they
have a positive attitude to evaluation and show a high degree of self-efficacy,
while – perhaps contrary to expectations – school climate or school quality
management have no influence.
These results show that comparative assessment studies – if they are not only
supposed to generate information on the systems level and on the performance of
pupils in general, but also aim towards having a concrete impact on individual
schools – can only have a quality-raising effect, if schools and teachers know how
to deal with results and if they have developed a positive attitude towards
evaluation. According to the results of Schrader and Helmke’s (2004) study,
quality-raising effects of comparative assessment studies are more likely if schools
and teachers are obliged to take concrete steps to achieve their goals, and if schools
and teachers are supported in this activity, so as to ensure that they are all able to
work towards them.

120
 CHANGING SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

Monitoring Instrument ‘School Inspections’

Apart from comparative assessment studies most education systems in Europe
have also introduced systematic and regular school inspections (cf. Böttcher &
Kotthoff, 2007). While the introduction of systematic and regular school
inspections dates back to the beginning of the 1990s in some education systems
(e.g. England), the introduction of school inspections in other European countries
(e. g. Switzerland and Germany) is a fairly recent feature of the school governing
system (cf. Kotthoff & Böttcher, 2010). Due to these differing implementation
time-spans and slight variations in the concrete organisation and performance of
school inspections in various education systems, the available evaluation results on
the effects of school inspections differ slightly.
An evaluation study on the implementation of school inspections in Switzerland
(Binder & Trachsler, 2002) has produced important results which have also
influenced the conceptualisation of inspection systems in Germany. For example,
after the carrying-out of an inspection in their own schools, about 90% of the
teachers and head teachers were of the opinion that this had led to relevant insights
into the quality of their school. However, further results of this study point to
fundamental difficulties in designing school inspections which are functional for
quality development, for instance:
− in spite of their positive assessment of school inspections, only 63% of the
questioned teachers managed to do a concrete follow-up of the results during the
first year following the report of the school inspectors;
− only 42% of the interviewees had set up an obligatory, compulsory plan for the
practical implementation of the measures; and
− only 25% of the interviewees had a compulsory time-table/schedule for the
implementation of the measures decided on.
More recent evaluation results from England concerning school inspections
produced better results with regards to the effects of school inspections on school
development. A report by OFSTED which was published in 2007 and which was
based on the results of an internal empirical study on the impact of inspections
(OFSTED, 2006) and an external evaluation by the National Foundation of
Educational research (NFER) (McCrone et al., 2007) summarised the main effects
of OFSTED inspections, which had been substantially revised in 2005: inspection
results seem to help schools set priorities in their own school development, even if
most schools assume that inspections will not uncover new deficits unknown to the
school. According to the local authorities, head teachers regard school inspections
as a sound basis for school development. The impact of the introduction of school
inspections on pupil performance is difficult to assess empirically, because of the
potential multitude of relevant factors. However, head teachers report several
positive effects on the attendance rate and the discipline of the pupils as well as the
quality of teaching and the curriculum which might, in the long-run, have a
positive influence on pupil performance. The newly introduced professional
dialogue between inspectors and teachers and the oral feedback provided to
teachers are extremely important for the acceptance of an inspectorate’s

121
H.-G. KOTTHOFF AND K. MAAG MERKI

recommendations throughout the school. Finally, the majority of head teachers

reacted positively to the newly introduced framework for self-evaluation: if
inspection results confirm the school’s own findings, it strengthens the school’s
self-confidence and alleviates the introduction of school development processes
(cf. OFSTED, 2007, pp. 12–13).
Especially, the last two findings correspond with the empirical results from
other studies (Chapman, 2002; Ehren & Visscher, 2006; Perryman, 2006;
Rosenthal, 2004; Shaw, Newton, Aitkin & Darnell, 2003; Standaert, 2001) which
indicate that through school inspections alone schools do not achieve a higher
degree of quality and long-term performance increases. Inspections induce only
marginal and short-term changes in schools, for example in management or non
class-related practice which in addition can hinder schools developing an effective
strategy for sustainable improvement. In addition to this, particularly weak schools
(failing schools) have difficulties deriving effective procedural strategies from the
feedback of results (Schwier, 2005).
The conclusion to be drawn from these results is that structures of learning
organisations with a corresponding organisational culture and an elaborated
internal quality control system are necessary so that school inspections can have
sustainable effects on the quality of schools. This is means, in practice, that the
results of school self-evaluations need to be taken as the starting point for the
external school inspection. In this way internal and external evaluation can be
systematically related to each other.

Monitoring Instrument ‘State-Wide Exit Examinations’

In many European countries and particularly in the USA, state-wide exit
examinations have been in place for many years (Klein, Kühn, Van Ackeren &
Block, 2009). However, the different examination systems vary substantially
between countries with regards to their form, content, demands and degree of
standardisation.
Empirical results are primarily available with regards to the recent introduction
of the rigorous examination system in the USA (‘No-child-left-behind’). In
addition, it is possible to estimate the effects of new examination systems on the
basis of international comparative studies. However, the current state of research is
lacking with respect to longitudinal studies, which analyse the effects of state-wide
exit exams and change-impacts derived from the testing system on various
dimensions of pupil learning (in different subjects and cross-curricular). In
addition, many international comparative studies do not pay enough attention to
the differences between national test systems, which are partly significant
(cf. Klein et al., 2009); so the findings have to be interpreted with caution. The
available empirical findings can be summarised in the following way:
− The empirical effects of the implementation of standardised examination systems
on pupil learning and performance in the USA are controversial and hardly allow
an entirely and consistent positive appraisal which corresponds with the high
expectations (Herman, 2004). The positive effects on pupil performance which

122
 CHANGING SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

have been found in individual studies (e.g. Carnoy & Loeb, 2004) have to be
interpreted with great caution, because they could not (or only partly) be
confirmed by national representative studies, which were not linked to a high-
stakes feedback to teachers and schools (e.g. Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey &
Stecher, 2000; Koretz, 2002; Koretz & Barron, 1998; O’Day, 2004).
− In contrast to these findings, high-stakes examination systems seem to have
an important influence on the motivational and emotional experience of
pupils and these empirical findings appear to be relatively consistent.
They point, for example, to an increased level of stress, fear and tiredness on
the part of the pupils (Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Pedulla et al., 2003; Ryan,
Ryan, Arbuthnot & Samuels, 2007). In addition, there are indications of
increased drop-out rates in high schools. In this context, considerable
segregation effects can be observed, which are, for example, caused by an
affiliation with certain ethnic groups (e.g. Clarke, Haney & Madaus, 2000;
Miao & Haney, 2004; Nichols & Berliner, 2007).
− Studies, which analyse the effects of standardised, central examinations on
processes at school and on teaching (e.g. Koretz, McCaffrey & Hamilton, 2001),
show that, in particular, the implementation of highly standardised and output-
orientated high-stakes monitoring systems, which are directly linked to
important consequences for the participating teachers, pupils or head teachers
(e.g. retaking a year, sacking of staff members), can generate serious negative
effects.
− The analyses of data from international comparative assessment studies (e.g.
TIMSS, PISA) by Bishop (1999) and Wössmann (2003a, 2003b, 2005, 2008)
seem to indicate, that pupils in education systems with centrally administered
state-wide exit examinations perform better than pupils in education systems
with a decentralised examination system. However, this tendency varies
considerably between subjects, governance contexts (e.g. degree of school
autonomy) or performance levels of the pupils and the effects are altogether
rather small. In Germany, the introduction of central exit exams (Zentralabitur)
at the end of upper-secondary school seems to have stabilised the level of
performance in individual and frequently chosen courses. In addition, state-wide
exit exams seem to have led to a greater homogeneity in pupil performance
without affecting the quality of the individual learning (Baumert & Watermann,
2000).
− Further and more recent studies on the introduction of state-wide exit exams
(Zentralabitur) in Germany by Maag Merki (at press) showed no general effects
on teaching and learning. Teachers in centrally examined courses feel a rather
high level of pressure and uncertainty. However, in the first years of the
implementation of central exit exams the level of these negative feelings
decreases. Teachers seem to tend to reduce the variance of themes and topics in
their courses to a significantly higher degree and are less likely to be responsive
to the interest of their pupils than in courses with class-based exams. However,
there are positive effects on the achievement level in maths and English and on
the self-regulated learning of the students. Finally, and with regards to the

123
H.-G. KOTTHOFF AND K. MAAG MERKI

teaching quality, the introduction of central exit exams has led to rather positive
changes, although there are significant differences between subjects and
courses.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

The comparative analysis of these empirical studies on different aspects of school

governance indicates firstly, that the current system of school governance is only a
concept for the time being, which until now has not been empirically checked in its
integral form. Secondly, in spite of the fact that the European education systems
rely on similar governing and monitoring instruments, a closer look at the different
concepts of school governance reveals that the models of school governance vary
systematically from one to the other. Thirdly, the monitoring instruments of the
new school governance models generate insufficient and unclear effects for quality
development. Fourthly, the results show clearly that there are several, current
challenges which have to be resolved before this new system of school governance
can lead to real improvements in the quality of schools and in pupils’ performance.
In this context we would like to highlight three challenges which are of
particular relevance for Switzerland and Germany because the governing models in
both these education systems are still in a state of transition. The first challenge
concerns role conflicts between different actors or groups of actors in the new
system of school governance. The second major challenge will be to find the right
balance between pressure and support for teachers. The third challenge is to
establish a systematic relationship between internal and external monitoring
procedures.

Challenge 1: Role Conflicts Between Different Actors or Groups of Actors

One of the greatest challenges is that the relationship between the different actors
and the “grammar of system regulation” (Fend, 2005) has changed fundamentally
through the implementation of new steering elements and procedures. The
designation of new competences to schools and head teachers, for example, means
a loss of competences in some areas of school supervision. The strengthening of
the role of head teachers in schools means that classroom teachers are losing part
of their autonomy. This also means that roles between the different actors have to
be newly negotiated. This has so far not been successful; neither in Germany nor in
Switzerland.
The problem in Germany is that the schools have to set their targets with
different school authorities and that the different external monitoring instruments
and supervisory authorities are not systematically related to one another. In
addition, with the new establishment of the state institutes for quality development,
a new actor has entered the scene which has taken over a certain assessment
function which traditionally has been performed by different institutions. This
means that the question of which institution takes over which supervisory function
in which area and under which circumstances, has to be newly negotiated.

124
 CHANGING SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

The problem of role-conflict is observable in Germany and in Switzerland in that

although head teachers have been recognised as important agents of change within
schools they have not been given the necessary competences, particularly with
regards to their staff management competences. In Germany it was, until recently,
not possible for the school to influence the choice of their teaching staff. In
Switzerland, schools had at least an advisory function with regards to this aspect.
However, until the present day, head teachers do not have the responsibility of
recruiting or dismissing teaching staff. This is problematic because schools are
obliged to develop individual profiles, support co-operations between teams and
develop joint quality management. A team of teachers who hold consensus in
relation to important questions is a necessary pre-condition for the success of such
activities. The arbitrary allocation of teachers to schools by local government or the
loss of a teacher could strongly endanger existing forms of co-operation in a school.
With the development of head teachers who not only possess administrative
rights, but have also been allocated pedagogical leadership competences, a new
level of hierarchy has been established in schools. With the introduction of the
legal obligation for self-evaluation, schools have been ordered to take the quality
of teaching into their focus as well – an area which has traditionally been under the
sovereignty of the individual teacher. Many teachers find it very difficult to accept
this and regard these new procedures as a threat and a depreciation of their work.

Challenge 2: Pressure for Quality Development

In Germany, in particular, there is no possibility in the present system to put
teachers under pressure. There is neither an opportunity to reward good and
committed teachers, nor is there an opportunity to oblige poorly performing
teachers to take part in in-service training or to sack them because of their status as
civil servants.
This problem is a little less prominent in Switzerland because all teachers have a
working contract which can, in principle, be terminated within three or six months’
notice. In addition, there are legal regulations which do not only oblige schools to
pursue quality management, but they also oblige teachers to co-operate in teams
and take part in in-service training. There are special reward systems but although
the teacher appraisal procedure, which all teachers have to go through every three
to four years, envisages an additional reward for excellent teachers, there are
problems with the practical application of the reward system. Firstly, the reward is
so modest that it is not perceived as an additional motivation by the teachers.
Teachers would prefer to win recognition and receive feedback on their work from
colleagues or their own pupils. Secondly, the appraisal system is not selective
because 98% of the teachers receive a final assessment certifying that they fulfil or
exceed expectations. Thirdly, the financial means are missing in the Kantone so the
rewards cannot actually be paid out to the teachers. Fourthly, the appraisal system
is deficit-orientated because only those teachers who have received negative
appraisals are the ones to receive support or additional in-service training. Thus,
good appraisals do not pay-off; neither financially, nor in non-monetary terms.

125
H.-G. KOTTHOFF AND K. MAAG MERKI

Challenge 3: Systematic Relationship Between Internal and External Monitoring

Procedures
In Germany, external monitoring procedures like school inspections are based on
internal monitoring procedures such as self-evaluation. However, both these
instruments were implemented at the same time, so that schools did not have
enough time to analyse their own work systematically and introduce measures of
quality development prior to the commencement of inspections. As a result,
schools are frequently over-stretched because especially those schools which have
yet to conduct any self-evaluation, already have a culture of publicly
acknowledging and discussing their own strengths and weaknesses. However, this
culture is necessary if (external) feedback is to be used productively in establishing
measures of school development. This is also confirmed by studies from Rice and
Roellke (2009) as well as Valli, Croninger, Chambliss, Graeber and Buese (2008)
which arrive at the conclusion that the individual ability of the school to handle
and use external monitoring instruments (and results) productively, varies
according to its school development capacity. Recent changes in the monitoring
system which can be observed in England are also based on the increased
awareness that a substantial connection between internal and external monitoring
procedures is essential for the productive development of school processes.
To sum-up and to give a preliminary answer to the ‘question’ in the title of this
chapter, we suggest that on the basis of the available empirical evidence, school
governance does matter and has an impact on the quality of teaching and learning
in schools. However, the presented empirical results also indicate that these effects
are not always relevant for pupils and their learning, or for teachers and their
teaching practices; there are also negative effects and there are no observable
effects in some areas. In addition, the empirical results presented can be interpreted
as individual findings, which leave the question unanswered, as to how the
different monitoring instruments will interact in specific monitoring
configurations. Findings by Wössmann (2008) seem to suggest that there is at least
some interdependence between the degree of school autonomy granted and the
introduction of central exit exams. However, just how exactly school governing
models should be designed as a whole in fostering school development and
developing quality in education remains an open question and will require a lot
more research in years to come.
On the basis of international findings in relation to the question at-hand, we can
at least assume that monitoring systems, which are not designed as high-stakes
systems, are more productive in the achievement of higher educational goals.
These non-punitive monitoring systems are characterised by:
− monitoring instruments which have a systematic relationship to the individual
school;
− an orientation towards ‘support of’ rather than ‘sanctions for’ teachers and
pupils with transparent aims which are achievable with the available resources
and means;

126
 CHANGING SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

− the implementation of a multi-dimensional monitoring system with different

assessment methods, which focus on relevant processes and learning results;
− capacity-building with the aim of enabling schools to become learning
organisations with increased responsibility and a sense of shared ownership
(Abbott, 2008), which feel responsible for the learning of all pupils and which
are able to develop optimal learning environments for pupils;
− resources and support systems.
In order to achieve this, the optimal co-operation between educational policy,
educational research and educational practice is an essential prerequisite.

REFERENCES

Abbott, D. V. (2008). A functionality framework for educational organizations: Achieving

accountability at scale. In E. B. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement.
Linking data and learning (pp. 257–276). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Altrichter, H. (2008). Veränderungen der Systemsteuerung im Schulwesen durch die Implementation
einer Politik der Bildungsstandards [Changes in the steering of school systems through the
implementation of educational standards]. In T. Brüsemeister & K.-D. Eubel (Eds.), Evaluation,
Wissen und Nichtwissen [Evaluation, knowledge and lack of knowledge] (pp. 75–116). Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag.
Altrichter, H. (2010). Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung durch Datenrückmeldung [Development of
schools and teaching-learning processes through feedback of data]. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag
Merki (Eds.), Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem [Handbook new steering in the school
system] (pp. 219–524). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Altrichter, H. & Heinrich, M. (2005). Schulprofilierung und Transformation schulischer Governance
[School Profiling and transformation of school governance]. In X. Büeler, A. Buholzer & M. Roos
(Eds.), Schulen mit Profil [Schools with profile] (pp. 125–140). Innsbruck: StudienVerlag.
Altrichter, H. & Maak Merki, K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem [Handbook
new steering in the school system].Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Ball, S. (1993). Education markets, choice and social class: The market as a class strategy in the UK
and the USA. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14, 3–19.
Baumert, J. & Watermann, R. (2000). Institutionelle und regionale Variabilität und die Sicherung
gemeinsamer Standards in der gymnasialen Oberstufe [Institutional and regional variability and
assurance of common standards in the upper secondary school]. In J. Baumert, W. Bos &
R. Lehmann (Eds.), TIMSS/III. Dritte Internationale Mathematik- und Naturwissenschaftsstudie –
Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende der Schullaufbahn. Band 2.
Mathematische und physikalische Kompetenzen am Ende der gymnasialen Oberstufe [TIMSS/III
Third international mathematics and science study – mathematics and science achievement in the
final year of secondary school. Vol. 2 Competences in mathematics and physics at the end of upper
secondary schooling.] (pp. 317–372). Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
Benner, D. (2002). Die Struktur der Allgemeinbildung im Kerncurriculum moderner Bildungssysteme.
Ein Vorschlag zur bildungstheoretischen Rahmung von PISA [The structure of general education in
the core curriculum of modern education systems. A proposal for the educational framing of PISA ].
Zeitschrift für Pädagogik,48(1), 68–90.
Benz, A. (Ed.). (2004). Governance – Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Einführung
[Governance – governing in complex systems of control. An introduction]. Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Binder, H.-M. & Trachsler, E. (2002). wif!-Projekt “Neue Schulaufsicht an der Volksschule” Externe
Evaluation [The wif-project “New school supervison/inspection in the elementary school”]. Luzern:
Interface, Institut für Politikstudien.

127
H.-G. KOTTHOFF AND K. MAAG MERKI

Bishop, J. H. (1999). Are national exit examinations important for educational efficiency? Swedish
Economic Policy Review, 6, 349–398.
Böttcher, W. & Kotthoff, H.-G. (Eds.). (2007). Schulinspektion: Evaluation, Rechenschaftslegung und
Qualitätsentwicklung [School inspection: evaluation, accountability and quality development].
Münster: Waxmann.
Broadfoot, P. (2000): Un nouveau mode de régulation dans un système décentralisé: l’État évaluateur
[A new mode of regulation in a decentralised system: The state evaluator]. Revue Française de
Pédagogie, 130, 43–55.
Brookover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J. & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School social systems and
student achievement – Schools can make a difference. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Burkard, C. & Eikenbusch, G. (2002). Schulentwicklung international – eine Bilanz. Was können wir
von den Erfahrungen anderer Länder lernen? [School development international – taking stock.
What can we learn from the experiences of other countries?] Pädagogik, 54(11), 44–49.
Carnoy, M. & Loeb, S. (2004). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state
analysis. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education
(pp. 189–219). New York: Teachers College Press.
Chapman, C. (2002). Ofsted and school improvement: Teacher’s perceptions of the inspection process
in schools facing challenging circumstances. School Leadership & Management, 22(3), 257–272.
Clarke, M., Haney, W. & Madaus, G. (2000). High stakes testing and high school completion. NBETPP
Statements, 1(3), 1–12.
Ditton, H., Arnoldt, B. & Bornemann, E. (2002). Entwicklung und Implementation eines extern
unterstützenden Systems der Qualitätssicherung an Schulen – QuaSSU [Development and
implementation of an externally supporting system of quality assurance in schools – QuaSSU].
Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 45(Beiheft), 374–389.
Döbert, H. (2005). Flexibel, innovativ und output-orientiert – zu wesentlichen Merkmalen erfolgreicher
Schulsysteme [Flexible, innovative and output-oriented – on essential features of successful school
systems]. Erziehung und Unterricht, 155(1–2), 12–23.
Döbert, H. & Fuchs, H.-W. (Eds.). (2005). Leistungsmessungen und Innovationsstrategien in
Schulsystemen: Ein internationaler Vergleich [Performance measurement and strategies of
innovation in school systems: an international comparison ]. Münster: Waxmann.
Döbert, H. & Sroka, W. (2004). Features of successful school systems: A comparison of schooling in six
countries. Münster: Waxmann.
Dubs, R. (1996). Schule und New Public Management [Schools and new public management]. Beiträge
zur Lehrerbildung, 14, 330–337.
Ehren, M. C. M. & Visscher, A. J. (2006). Towards a theory of the impact of school inspections. British
Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 51–72.
Fend, H. (1998). Qualität im Bildungswesen. Schulforschung zu Systembedingungen, Schulprofilen und
Lehrerleistung [Quality in education systems. Educational research on terms and conditions of
education systems, school profiles and teacher performance]. Weinheim: Juventa.
Fend, H. (2005). Systemsteuerung im Bildungswesen – Anschlussfähigkeiten an die Schulwirklichkeit
[System steering in education systems – potentials for school reality]. In K. Maag Merki, A.
Sandmeier, P. Schuler & H. Fend (Eds.), Schule wohin? Schulentwicklung und Qualitätsmanagement
im 21. Jahrhundert. Schriftenreihe zu “Bildungssystem und Humanentwicklung”: Berichte aus dem
Forschungsbereich Schulqualität & Schulentwicklung [Where are schools going? School
development and quality management in the 21st century. Series of papers on “education system and
human development”: reports from the department of research school quality & school development]
(pp. 15–27). Zürich: Forschungsbereich Schulqualität & Schulentwicklung, Pädagogisches Institut,
Universität Zürich.
Fend, H. (2006). Neue Theorie der Schule. Einführung in das Verstehen von Bildungssystemen.
Lehrbuch [New theory of schools. Introduction to the understanding of educational systems. Course
book]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

128
 CHANGING SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

Herman, J. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.),
Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education (pp. 141–166). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Hopmann, St. T., Brinek, G. & Retzl, M. (Eds.). (2007). PISA zufolge PISA. Hält PISA, was es
verspricht? [PISA according to PISA. Does PISA keep what it promises?]. Wien: LIT-Verlag.
Klein, E. D., Kühn, S. M., Van Ackeren, I. & Block, R. (2009). Wie zentral sind zentrale Prüfungen? –
Abschlussprüfungen am Ende der Sekundarstufe II im nationalen und internationalen Vergleich
[How central are central exams? Central exit exams at the end of upper secondary schooling in
national and international comparison], Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 55(4), 596–621.
Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell
us? (Issue Paper IP-202). Santa Monica: Rand.
Koretz, D. (2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators’ productivity.
Journal of Human Resources, 37, 752–777.
Koretz, D. & Barron, S. I. (1998). The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results
Information System (KIRIS), MR-1014-EDU. Santa Monica: Rand.
Koretz, D., McCaffrey, D. & Hamilton, L. S. (2001). Toward a framework for validating gains under
high-stakes conditions. CSE Technical Report 551. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on
Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Kotthoff, H.G. & Böttcher, W. (2010): Neue Formen der „Schulinspektion“: Wirkungshoffnungen und
Wirksamkeit im Spiegel empirischer Bildungsforschung. In: ALTRICHTER; H. & MAAK MERKI;
K. (Hg.) (2010). Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 295–325.
Kussau, J. & Brüsemeister, T. (2007). Educational Governance: Zur Analyse der Handlungskoordination
im Mehrebenensystem der Schule [Educational governance: on the analysis of coordination of action
in the multilevel system of the school]. In H. Altrichter, T. Brüsemeister & J. Wissinger (Eds.),
Educational Governance. Handlungskoordination und Steuerung im Bildungswesen [Educational
governance. Coordination of action and steering in the education system] (pp. 15–54). Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Lauder, H. & Hughes, D.(1999). Trading in futures. Why markets in education don’t work.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Maag Merki, K. (Ed.). (at press). Zentralabitur. Die längsschnittliche Analyse der Wirkungen der
Einführung zentraler Abiturprüfungen in Deutschland. [Central upper secondary exit exams. A
longitudinal analysis of the impact of the introduction of central exit exams in Germany]
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Maag Merki, K. (2010): Theoretische und empirische Analysen der Effektivität von Bildungsstandards,
standardbezogenen Lernstandserhebungen und zentralen Abschlussprüfungen. In: Altrichter; H. &
Maak Merki; K. (Hg.) (2010). Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem.Wiesbaden: VS Verlag,
145–169.
Maroy, C. (2008). The new regulation forms of educational systems in Europe: Towards a post-
bureaucratic regime. In N. C. Soquel & P. Jaccard (Eds.), Governance and performance of
education systems (pp. 13–33). Dordrecht: Springer.
McCrone, T., Rudd, P., Blenkinsop, S., Wade, P., Rutt, S. & Yeshanew, T. (2007). Impact of Section 5
inspections: Maintained schools in England. Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational
Research.
Messner, R. (2003). PISA und Allgemeinbildung [PISA and general education]. Zeitschrift für
Pädagogik, 49(3), 400–412.
Miao, J. & Haney, W. (2004). High school graduation rates: Alternative methods and implications.
Boston: Boston College.
Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L. & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters: The junior years. Somerset:
Open Books.
Nichols, S. L. & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage. How high-stakes testing corrupts
American’s schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

129
H.-G. KOTTHOFF AND K. MAAG MERKI

O’Day, J. A. (2004). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. In S. H. Fuhrman &

R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 15–43). New York:
Teachers College Press.
OECD. (2004). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3746,en_2649_39263231_11969545_1_1_1_1,00.html.
OFSTED. (2006). School inspection. An evaluation (HMI 2373). Manchester: OFSTED Publication
Centre.
OFSTED. (2007). Review of the impact of inspection (Reference no: 070042). Manchester: OFSTED
Publication Centre.
Neave, G. (1988). On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: An overview of recent trends
in higher education in Western Europe, 1986–1988. European Journal of Education, 23, 7–23.
Pedulla, J., Abrams, L. M., Madaus, G., Russell, M., Ramos, M. & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of
state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of
teachers. Chestnut Hill: Boston College, National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
Peek, R. (2004). Qualitätsuntersuchung an Schulen zum Unterricht in Mathematik (QuaSUM) –
Klassenbezogene Ergebnisrückmeldungen und ihre Rezeption in Brandenburger Schulen [Quality
analyses in schools of the teaching of mathematics (QuaSUM) – class-related feedback of test
results and their reception in Brandenburg schools]. Empirische Pädagogik, 18(1), 82–114.
Perryman, R. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: Disciplinary mechanisms
and life under special measures. Journal of Education, 21(2), 147–161.
Rice, J. K. & Roellke, C. (2009). Conclusion: Linking high-stakes accountability and capacity. In
J. K. Rice & C. Roellke (Eds.), High stakes accountability. Implications for resources and capacity
(pp. 251–257). Charlotte: Information AGE Publishing, Inc.
Rolff, H.-G. (2002). Rückmeldungen und Nutzung der Ergebnisse von großflächigen
Leistungsuntersuchungen. Grenzen und Chancen [Feedback and utilisation of results from large-
scale assessments. Limitations and opportunities.]. In H.-G. Rolff, H. G. Holtappels, K. Klemm,
H. Pfeiffer & R. Schulz-Zander (Eds.), Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung. Band 12. Daten, Beispiele
und Perspektiven [Yearbook of school development. Vol. 12. Data, examples and perspectives]
(pp. 75–98). Weinheim, München: Juventa.
Rosenthal, L. (2004). Do school inspections improve school quality? Ofsted inspections and school
examination results in the UK. Economics of Educational Review, 23, 143–151.
Ryan, K. E., Ryan, A. M., Arbuthnot, K. & Samuels, M. (2007). Students’ motivation for standardized
math exams. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 5–13.
Schildkamp, K., Visscher, A. & Luyten, H. (2009). The effects of the use of a school self-evaluation
instrument. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(1), 69–88.
Schrader, F.-W. & Helmke, A. (2004). Von der Evaluation zur Innovation? Die Rezeptionsstudie
WALZER: Ergebnisse der Lehrerbefragung [From evaluation to innovation? The reception study
WALZER: results of the teacher survey]. Empirische Pädagogik, 18(1), 140–161.
Schwier, B. (2005). Ein blinder Fleck: Schulentwicklung als Schulverbesserung von “schwachen”
Schulen in England und Wales. Probleme und Entwicklungsansätze [A blind spot: school
development as school improvement of ‘weak’ schools in England and Wales. Problems and
strategies for development]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 51(3), 380–396.
Shaw, I., Newton, D. P., Aitkin, M. & Darnell, R. (2003). Do OFSTED inspection of secondary schools
make a difference to GCSE results? British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 63–75.
Standaerd, R. (2001). Inspectorates of education in Europe. A critical analysis. Leuven: Acco.
Valli, L., Croninger, R. G., Chambliss, M. J., Graeber, A. O. & Buese, D. (2008). Test driven. High-
stakes accountability in elementary schools. New York: Teacher College Press.
Visscher, A. J. & Coe, R. (2003). School performance feedback systems: Conceptualisation, analysis,
and reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 321–349.
Wössmann, L. (2003a). Central exams as the “currency” of school systems: International evidence on
the complementary of school autonomy and central exams. DICE Report – Journal for Institutional
Comparisons, 1(4), 46–56.

130
 CHANGING SYSTEMS OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

Wössmann, L. (2003b). Central exit exams and student achievement: International evidence. In
P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school
accountability (pp. 292–323). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Wössmann, L. (2005). The effect heterogeneity of central examinations: Evidence from TIMSS,
TIMSS-Repeat and PISA. Education Economics, 13(2), 143–169.
Wössmann, L. (2008). Zentrale Abschlussprüfungen und Schülerleistungen. Individualanalysen anhand
von vier internationalen Tests [Central exit exams und pupil performance. Individual analyses on the
basis of four international tests]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 54(6), 810–826.

Hans-Georg Kotthoff
Professor of Educational Science and Comparative Education
University of Education Freiburg

Katharina Maag Merki

Professor of Educational Science
University of Zürich

131
 CHRISTINA SEGERHOLM

8. GLOBAL EVALUATION AND QUALITY

ASSURANCE POLICY MEET LOCAL EDUCATION
CONTEXT
A Swedish Case Narrative

INTRODUCTION

Findings from a case study of policies and practices of quality

assurance/assessment and evaluation in education (QAE) in one Swedish
municipality are reported in this chapter, and discussed in relation to the
overall Swedish national QAE system and global policies, i.e. policies of
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and
the European Union (EU). The aim of the study was to explore work with
evaluative activities at local and school levels; how these activities relate to
national and international QAE policies; and their impacts on local policy-
making and education practice. No claims are made that the findings represent
the state of Sweden as a whole. Rather, the findings exemplify how
connections between schools, local and national authorities and international
organisations may work. The study also provides examples of different kinds
of impacts of QAE. Questions directing the inquiry were: What do QAE
activities look like at local and school levels, and are there any signs of
international influences in the local QAE policies and practices? What impacts
of these policies and practices, if any, can be discerned, in education practice
and in local policy-making?
This study is put into a broader context by first offering a background to the
study itself and also describing the Swedish context briefly. A conceptual
framework is provided thereafter in order to explicate the origin of the research
questions and to guide interpretations of the information collected in the case
study. A short section on the methodological approach as well as on data collection
follows. The findings are presented as case narrative in line with Robert Stake’s
case study approach (Stake, 1995). In a final section, the findings are discussed in
relation to the Swedish national QAE policy and to the policies of the OECD and
the EU. Issues concerning the relation between evaluative activities and governing
are brought forward as well.

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 133–146.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
C. SEGERHOLM

BACKGROUND

The findings reported here stem from a case study directed at exploring policies
and practices of evaluation and QAE in comprehensive school in Sweden. The
study was part of an international comparative project called Fabricating Quality in
European Education1 that included five nations; Denmark, Finland, England,
Scotland and Sweden. The overall aims of the international project were to:
a) Develop [an] understanding of QAE as a form of governance of education,
through empirical investigation and theoretical work that draws on current
social science approaches to the relationship between evidence, data and
governing;
b) Develop new methodological and theoretical approaches to comparative
education in Europe, which combine perspectives on emergent global policy
development with critical approaches to meaning-making through comparison
and with attention to the mediating effects of national and local practices (Ozga,
2005, p. 2).
The study reported here corresponds to the first aim since its particular interest is
in exploring evaluative activities (QAE) in Swedish local contexts, i.e.
municipalities2 (‘kommuner’ in Swedish) and schools. An examination related to
the second aim will not be undertaken at present.

Global, National and Local QAE Policies and Practices in Education

Policies and practices of evaluative activities like inspection, quality assurance,
quality assessment, quality audits, programme evaluation, student assessments,
national and international tests, teacher assessments, etc. (henceforth called quality
assurance and evaluation, QAE) are abundant in most western (global North)
nations. In many cases these activities are being installed as parts of evaluation
systems in public education, and educational systems are often governed by the
‘governing by objectives and results’ doctrine (other terms used for this kind of
governing paradigm are goals/targets/standards-results/outcomes).
As it is increasingly believed that competition on the global market depends on
knowledge, thereby having rendered education a market good, education and
learning have been made central in global policy-making (Ozga, Seddon &
Popkewitz, 2006, pp. 6–7). Particular interest is directed towards measuring quality
in education by, for example, means of international tests like PISA, TIMSS,
PIRLS, or by indicators in areas like life-long learning and learn-to-learn
developed to enhance the Lisbon objectives by the European Commission
(Commission of the European Communities 2007). It is believed that improvement
is sustained by comparisons (best practice, best example) and competition between
nations (ranking). In order to make these comparisons possible, commensurability
in the measurements is required, which thereby also asks nation states to converge
to certain policies and practices of QAE.
International and transnational organisations like the OECD and the EU are major
actors in producing policies and practices in this field (Martens & Balzer, 2004;

134
 GLOBAL EVALUATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

Grek, Lawn, Lingard & Varjo, 2009; Grek et al., 2009). However, nation states and
local authorities have diverging economic, political and social histories and engage in
different ways in these transnational policy-making processes. So when policies
travel, they are transmitted, translated, transformed and ‘indigenised’ (Steiner-
Khamsi, 2000) in order to meet local ‘embedded’ policies (Ozga & Jones, 2006).
This means that we can expect national and local QAE policies, strategies and
practices to develop in ways that are influenced by international/global QAE policies,
albeit, not through a blueprint.

QAE and Governing

In the governing by goals/objectives/targets and results/outcomes rationale it is
imperative to measure results/outcomes in various ways in order to check if the
goals/objectives/targets are met (Segerholm, 2007). This is even more apparent
when parental choice is implemented, as it is said that parents need information in
order to make rational choices regarding schools in which they will enrol their
child/ren (Ball, 2006). It can also be argued that the governing of education now
includes QAE, that is, what is measured and how it is measured, to turn the
attention in schools and local education authorities to these ‘measurements’ and
activities. What is measured becomes important and directs action (Linn, 2000;
Segerholm & Åström, 2007).
Through the establishment (in the EU, the OECD and other international
organisations) of common, internationally agreed upon indicators, tests and
evaluations, measurements become commensurable, making international
comparisons possible. Neither the OECD nor the EU are, however, decisive
political bodies when it comes to education, even though they play a significant
role in what may be labelled as global governance in the field of education. This
field is still also a national policy domain due to the principle of subsidiarity (Grek
et al., 2009). So, the nation state as a governing body still exerts power in
education, although it is not as sovereign as it was seen to be some decades ago
(Pierre & Peters, 2000). Public-private cooperation in education deliverance,
parental choice, and other new public management methods, as well as different
local, national and international networks influencing education policy, have
changed the context for the nation state when it comes to governing (Ball 2006;
Pierre & Peters, 2000; Sassen, 2007).
Global governing may yet be possible since QAE policies travel, through policy
brokers or policy elites, in several directions (Lawn & Lingard, 2002). They also
travel through the commonly agreed upon measurements that direct attention to
what is measured. These align with the impact of tests and a phenomenon called
teach-to-the-test. At the same time, and as outlined above, these governing
processes are also embedded in national and local history, cultures, policies and
practices, making it hard to talk about governing in terms of convergence to global
and international policies. Rosenau describes global governing as a mobius web:
“A mobius web is top-down, bottom-up and side by side governance all at once
(Rosenau, 2002, pp. 81–83 as cited in Rosenau, 2005, p. 145). He continues to

135
C. SEGERHOLM

point out that efficient global governance is not easily achieved since there are
many levels, actors, and networks, etc. whose compliance and concerted efforts are
needed in effectuating policy. This also means that education policy and QAE
influences may not only come from the state, but that they also move between
levels, nations, regions and networks – horizontally and vertically.
In the international project (Fabricating Quality in European Education) we
explored how QAE is connected to governing and to the international and national
efforts to make education a matter of quality.

The Swedish Context

Sweden has been collecting information about its citizens for a long time; for
example, population literacy rates have been regularly assessed from the 1700s
onwards (Johansson, 1977). Primary schooling was mandated in 1842, and national
inspections of local schools and authorities was established in 1861 (Persson,
1998; Rickardsson, 1980). These inspections continued to 1990 and the decades
before their termination were more of a type of development support. Between
1990 and 2003 there was no school inspection. Central, national plans for
compulsory education (both concerning content in school subjects and time tables
for each subject and grade), and later national curricula, were part of a highly
centralised governing system. Detailed rules and regulations about school
buildings, teachers’ qualifications, state grants, etc., were other parts of this type of
rule-based governing (Lindensjö & Lundgren, 2000; Segerholm, 2009). National
tests were administrated in certain school subjects with the purpose of calibrating
the grading (norm-based) system throughout the country.
From 1980 onwards, with a peak in the middle of the 1990s, a process to
decentralise and push responsibility down and out to ‘kommuner’ and schools took
place. The national curriculum of 1994 is based on national goals/objectives to be
attained, without the imposition of a prescribed sequence of content. Detailed state
subsidies were abandoned in favour of a lump sum to the ‘kommuner’. During
the 1990s a national evaluation system was successively constructed, composed by
the following required activities: national tests (also to ensure a nationally fair
grading system where grades became criterion-based); national evaluation of all
school subjects; national follow-ups (statistics on certain indicators, recorded in
on-line databases called SIRIS and SALSA (SIRIS, 2010, Skolverket n.d.) and
quality accounts from ‘kommuner’ and individual schools also including certain
indicators. In 2003, national school inspection was reintroduced, and in 2008 this
was strengthened as a result of the more neo-liberal government taking office in
the autumn of 2006. Another addition to the QAE system in the new millennium
was mandatory individual development plans for each pupil – plans that are highly
dependent on student assessments, which also had to be incorporated in the
schools’ quality accounts in some way (Segerholm, 2009).
It is clearly spelled-out in Swedish policy documents concerning QAE that all
these activities are used as governing instruments which will sustain the governing

136
 GLOBAL EVALUATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

by goals and results doctrine, and that they entail a substantial amount of local and
school activity and self-evaluation (Ibid.).

THE STUDY

To explore QAE policies and practices in comprehensive school in Sweden, i.e. the
work with evaluative activities undertaken in ‘kommuner’ and schools, and study
possible connections to national and international QAE policy, a multiple case
study of two ‘kommuner’ in the northern part of Sweden was carried out (one
reported here). A case study approach inspired by Stake (1995) was used to
explore and illuminate the individual cases, their particularities and complexities.
The ambition was to better understand the local QAE work, its origin (or rather
where inspiration or models were coming from) conditions, processes, uses and
impacts on policy and educational practice.
The selection was made out of convenience but also on the basis that these two
‘kommuner’ were sampled in a survey study directed at teachers asking about their
experiences and work with QAE. The survey was conducted in the spring of 2008
(Karlsson & Segerholm, 2008).
In each ‘kommun’ interviews were conducted with teachers (1–5) at two
schools, which were chosen so as to include all grades in compulsory education in
Sweden (grades K-93). Interviews were also conducted with the principals at these
schools and civil servants responsible for one school district in the larger
‘kommun’. Finally, the chairpersons of the school boards (‘utbildningsnämndens
ordförande’ in Swedish) as well as the directors of education (civil servants of the
highest rank within the area of education, ‘förvaltningschef’ in Swedish) were
interviewed. The data and information also comprised of local quality accounts for
the ‘kommuner’ and schools, other instruments used for QAE purposes by the
schools and ‘kommuner’, as well as documented activities and results/outcomes.
The latter included, for example, questionnaires to parents and pupils asking for
their opinions of the school with regard to social climate, support to pupils, and
connection to pupils’ school-work. In addition answers about experiences of QAE
given by teachers in this ‘kommun’ in a national survey study were used.
To safeguard the ethical principle of confidentiality, and possibly also elicit
more honest answers, names of ‘kommuner’, schools and people have been altered.
All informants voluntarily took part in the interviews after being informed of the
research project and its aims.
Information from the two cases was collected in 2008–2009. The case
narrative – for the case reported in this chapter – starts with a general description
of the ‘kommun’, so as to provide some sense of the local flavour and context that
frames the work, experiences and sentiments of QAE; as presented by the
informants at the ‘kommun’ centre and by principals and teachers. Actual QAE
work and its connections to national and international QAE policy is portrayed,
and its impacts are presented as perceived by the informants. I have translated the
quotations from the interviewees, which have been ‘polished’ so that they may be
comprehensible.

137
C. SEGERHOLM

BERGFORSEN KOMMUN

The landscape of this ‘kommun’ is beautiful with hills and mountains covered with
spruce and pine, a big river, a small central town and 26 dispersed villages. It is a
small ‘kommun’ in terms of number of people (around 5,000–6,000 persons), but it
covers a substantial geographical area. Travelling from several villages to the
central town takes more than half an hour by car. There are six schools; one of
them is a lower secondary school (grades 7–9), and four other schools are located
in some of the villages. A special school for children with developmental
disabilities is integrated in one of the ordinary schools. Since there is no upper
secondary school, youths 16–19 years of age go to other ‘kommuner’ to continue
their education. Through a programme at the ‘KomVux’, arrangements are made
for pupils who have left compulsory school with incomplete grades in this
‘kommun’.4 Bergforsen kommun had been nominated for two awards for its
quality in education this autumn (2008). In terms of this research, two schools were
visited: the Key school (K-6 + special school) and the Book school (grades 7–9).
There are many small companies, the informants told, and for a long time, the
unemployment rate had been low (1.9%) – prior to and when this case study was
conducted.5 The level of education is rather low, a large proportion of the adult
population is married (80%), and despite a seemingly stable local labour market
and safe community, there is a steady decrease in the population. However, this
‘kommun’ takes on the responsibility of receiving refugees.
Politically, a centre-social democratic coalition (the Centre Party and the Social
Democratic Party) and secured most of the mandates in the local parliament in the
2006 election, where the social democratic party was the largest political party, but
did not manage to win majority. The positions as chairs for the different sector
boards (like the education board) were split between these two parties.

Power Relations in the Local School Organisation

In a small ‘kommun’ like this, it was said, it is usually the common good of the
‘kommun’ that is in the foreground of daily political work, meaning that
consensus-building is important. This is made easier by the fact that the
chairperson in the Board of Education, in this case, is also a member of the
‘kommun’ board, i.e. the overall operating board for all parts of a ‘kommun’ (like a
local government). Educational issues are well received in this board as well as in
the local parliament, as explained by the interviewed chairperson.
The impression from the interviewees was that it is easy to get in touch with
politicians and civil servants. Several interviewed teachers confirmed this. The
central administration, i.e. the director of education, regularly meets with school
principals (three in all); usually every third-week. Labour unions are also part of
discussions and meetings, as reported by both the chairperson and one of the
principals. Also, members of the education board visit all schools once a year.
Several of the informants, both teachers and principals, underlined the work of the
former director of education in establishing good relations between the schools and
the ‘kommun’ centre, and how that person had been genuinely concerned about

138
 GLOBAL EVALUATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

educational issues. Among other things, he had developed the manual for the
obligatory local quality account.
Based on all accounts, an openness and nearness between schools and the
‘kommun’ centre was portrayed, despite disagreement on some issues. The
interviewed teachers and principals were not afraid to criticise the local politicians,
nor did the teachers seem hesitant to express negative feelings about some of the
principals’ ideas on how to undertake evaluative activities.

Notions of Quality in Education

Many informants emphasised quality in education as a matter of pupils being
involved in school matters and feeling secure and noticed by their teachers. It was
also mentioned that good education quality is to attain the national goals, both
academic and social/democratic goals. The impression from the interviews was
that raising stable, knowledgeable and concerned adult human beings is what
quality in education is all about, but that this is quite difficult to measure.

QAE Work in Bergforsen kommun

What seemed to cause most of the actual work with respect to QAE is the annual
‘local quality accounts’. At schools, teachers explained that they spend around half
a day to collectively, in their respective teacher teams, assess their work in five
areas. These areas are:
− Norms and values
− Influence and involvement
− Learning and development
− Pupils with special needs
− Entrepreneurship
In the Key school, the principals and teachers revealed that questionnaires are sent
to parents and pupils. They are asked to assess the support pupils receive, the
social climate in their respective schools, the available opportunities to be involved
in school work, etc. These data, along with grades, classroom assessments, teacher
evaluations, reading tests, other documentations of daily work, and work with
individual student development plans, form the basis for the assessment of the
work of each teacher-team in the areas listed above. The assessment is summarised
in a figure for each area, accompanied by more explanatory texts. The BRUK
evaluation model, developed by the National Agency for Education, has been used
to construct this local manual which became apparent in reading one of the teacher
team’s material (i.e. Kvalitetsredovisning 20070615, Teacher team 3–4).
All interviewed teachers found this exercise too time-consuming and did not
really think it was particularly rewarding. Or as one teacher at the Key school put
it: “We did it as fast as we could in order to get it done. It is hard to know what we
are measuring. We recycle parts of old accounts in order to save time.” Teachers
interviewed at the Book school were more interested in, and thought it more useful

139
C. SEGERHOLM

and attractive to spend time on discussions about their own teaching, how they
assess pupils and what they need to strive for in their work; that is, educational
issues that they, themselves, have found problematic. They suggested that quality
work could be useful if ways for them to evaluate their own work were
implemented.
All quality accounts at the schools are summarised and sent as a school report
from each school to the central administration in the ‘kommun’. There, the director
summarises them into a single quality account for the ‘kommun’ and a report to the
National Agency for Education – the national authority responsible for collecting
this kind of information (at the time of the study). Local quality accounts are made
public through an on-line database; SIRIS6 (Skolverket, 2010).
The chairperson explained that she deemed the local quality accounts very
useful, but she also acknowledged that they take a lot of work. She also expressed
that there are probably enough measurement activities already in place: “In a small
‘kommun’ like this, we cannot measure too much. If something is added, we have
to take away something existing because we simply have no time to follow-up and
give feedback”. The director was of the same opinion. Although she was newly
hired she said that she wanted the quality accounts to be less extensive. She was
also looking for methods on how to measure quality that capture the relation
between pupils’ capacity for learning when entering school and the extent to which
these capacities are used during their nine years of schooling.
When the quality account for Bergforsen is finished, the education board
discusses it and accepts it through a formal decision-making process. Plans of what
to put on the agenda for the coming period are based on this account, as explained
by the interviewed chairperson. One example given recounts how the board once
found that this ‘kommun’ did not fair too well in reading ability. It consequently
decided to implement early tests on reading ability in order to improve early
support for children who need it. After decisions on what to work with in the
coming year are made, board members visit every school for a follow-up and
feedback processing.
At the time of their interviews, teachers in the Key school had been occupied
with ‘individual development plans’; in constructing them and implementing them
into their daily work. One informant said that this was the most important quality
activity since it requires that pupils be listened to. However supportive this
material is for the work with younger children, it developed into “a monster when
it comes to the older children. There are lots of papers and 60 items to be assessed,
and the papers were sent to the parents. When asked, the parents did not want them
and said that they trusted the teachers to do the job”, said one of the interviewed
teachers.
At the Book school, tests and assessments of pupils are major concerns, as
expressed by the school’s teachers. They noticed equivalency problems in their
grading; something they have tried to come to terms with by comparing results
with those from national tests and sharing the work of assessing those tests. They
also confessed that they occasionally work with old national tests in order to
prepare pupils for upcoming tests, though it is not a widespread practice.

140
 GLOBAL EVALUATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

The chairperson and the director of education expressed that they found national
inspections very useful. The chairperson said: “The inspection is something
positive. It is good that someone from outside cares what goes on in our schools.
They showed for example that we had an organisation with too few principals. Now
we have a better organisation with an addition of resources for another half-time
principal position to take responsible for the village schools. The inspection also
showed us that the motivation among older children in the village schools was
lower as compared to the pupils’ in the town school – there were not enough
challenges (in the village schools, my clarification).” This was corroborated by one
of the principals who also added: “We did not prepare much before the inspection –
we knew what they were going to say. What they point at is important and that is
also taken care of.” The teachers at the Book school talked about the inspection in
terms of, “a normal conversation, but a bit ‘stressed up’. We were a bit anxious,
apprehensive, but they checked things more in general – are there plans?7 Their
recommendations have almost been followed, apart from the one concerning choice
of a second modern language, which is not possible to do, but there are now more
principals.”
Comparisons made possible by Sveriges kommuner och landsting’s (Swedish
Association of Local Authorities and Regions) annual Open comparisons8
(Sveriges kommuner och landsting, 2008) publications are of importance to this
‘kommun’ according to the interviewed chairperson, as well as the education
director and one principal – but not by the teachers. These measures are used to
check how the ‘kommun’ is ‘doing’ in relation to other ‘kommuner’ and function
as a signal when figures drop. On the other hand, media magnets like PISA are of
little consequence according to the informants. The chairperson, the director of
education and one principal told that they read them, and teachers have to carry
them out when their school is selected for participation, but otherwise, such
international tests have no impact.

Learning QAE
As already mentioned, the former director of education played a crucial role in
the development of QAE and particularly the local quality account in this
‘kommun’. The chairperson said she had learned from him. She also mentioned
neighbouring ‘kommuner’ as important sources for ideas, as did one principal.
Learning from colleagues was mentioned by several of the informants as
important; principals learn from other principals and teachers learn from
teachers. The National Agency for Education is another option for learning, as
mentioned by the chairperson. The director of education mentioned that she
learnt from reading reports from the National Agency for Education and other
published evaluations and materials, but she also said that neighbouring
‘kommuner’ and her meetings with them are important and serve as inspirers.
International materials were rarely ever referred to, apart from media reports on
Sweden’s performance in international tests.

141
C. SEGERHOLM

Sentiments Regarding QAE

A general expression among the informants in this ‘kommun’ was that evaluative
activities are here to stay, that they often are good and help improve quality.
Nevertheless, the teachers strongly underscored that evaluations and quality
assurance have to be useful for and close to everyday school processes; that is,
they must concern teaching and learning and the purpose of education. All
interviewees articulated a need to limit the number of evaluative activities and
time spent on them. There is much more QAE activity now, they said, and those
who answered the national survey found that these activities have increased
teachers’ awareness of quality in education (Karlsson & Segerholm, 2009). One
principal said that evaluation and quality assessment activities generate a lot of
attention when they are carried out. He thought that the most important part in
quality work is to, “follow through decisions and plans and check that the work is
directed towards finding procedures and structures that sustain systematic work
with issues within the school. There is otherwise a risk for short-term
interventions”.

Summary
The overall picture of this ‘kommun’ and the two schools within it is that there is
a concern that QAE activities are too numerous and too time-consuming.
Understandably, for the politicians and directors of education interviewed, and in
general, it is tempting to constantly find areas to measure, so as to ensure more
and better information for policy- and decision-making. But these informants
were very aware of the dangers of imposing on principals and teachers to engage
and deliver more and more data (of different sorts). It is also clear that different
QAE data are more attractive and useful for some of the interviewees than for
others. The interviewed teachers expressed a preference for QAE data and
processes concerning their daily work with pupils. Principals, the chairperson
and the director for education found data that make comparisons between schools
and ‘kommuner’ possible, of interest. In this ‘kommun’, quality in education
means pupils who feel safe at school and are noticed by their teachers. It also
means good academic and social outcomes. National tests, inspection and a
national evaluation model have a direct impact on local policy and educational
practice according to the informants. More indirect impact can be detected
through the use of indicators published in Open comparisons that were
frequently referred to in the interviews. International measures like PISA test
results and indicators pave the way for such impact. It must also be noted that the
political and administrative centre of the ‘kommun’, the principals and the
teachers, in their respective local contexts, adapt national and international QAE
policy to their environment. They chose to use and be influenced by some, but
not all. They adhere to some recommendations and not others, much depending
on the size of the ‘kommun’, the school and their own assessment of what is
most beneficial for them and their pupils. In Bergforsen there is also compliance

142
 GLOBAL EVALUATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

to the steering ideology governing by objectives/goals and results/outcomes, but

also signs of moderation and professional and critical reflexivity among the
informants.

DISCUSSION

Bergforsen, as a local policy space, is part of global policy and governance – but not
straightforwardly, i.e. OECD or EU QAE policies are not implemented as such, like
particular indicators or content in tests constructed at schools. However, it is hard to
envision this global governance as part of ‘a mobius web’ (Rosenau, 2005, p. 145) in
the case of this ‘kommun’ when trying to understand the case information and case
narrative. This does not mean that there are no apparent signs of networks and
governing signals concerning QAE coming from different directions ‘all at once’
(Ibid.). Other ‘kommuner’ are parts of this governing network in their cooperation
with Bergforsen around QAE issues. Ideas and techniques of QAE are carried,
transmitted, negotiated, and by that, travel also horizontally in this case. Bergforsen
and neighbouring ‘kommuner’ not only bring policy to the table; they also all get
something that is adapted to their particular local context. This adaption or
‘indigenisation’ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2000) is a product of mediation through
‘embedded policy’ (Ozga & Jones, 2006). It may also be understood in terms of a
translation process in which QAE practices are linguistically symbolised in one
setting and then interpreted in a different setting (Ozga & Segerholm, 2009). Or, as
Ozga and Segerholm put it, in an international context:
Through the flows of data, European and national policy-making interact,
speak to one another and arrive at a set of terms – a common language
which (apparently) simultaneously contains the national while creating the
trans-national. This ‘language’ encompasses benchmarks, indicators and
numerical data. The ‘translation’ process of national system characteristics
into European benchmarks and indicators contains the idea of change: as
Freeman puts it: “to translate is to represent in a new form something
previously or otherwise represented differently in another language or
medium” (2006, p. 1).
The idea of translation highlights the importance of portability and
acknowledges that being ‘translated’ produces new meanings, not simple
duplication (2009, p. 7).
The nation state is very much present through its governing instruments and
techniques, national tests, inspections and manuals for local quality accounts,
while global policy ‘talks’ or governs through that channel in an indirect way. The
nation state is visible in this ‘kommun’, embodied in the practices of a number of
quality assurance and evaluation activities; that is, as practising the idea of
constantly measuring and displaying quality – ‘performativity’ (Ball, 2003).
Global policy and governance can also be discerned in favouring this particular
rationality – in the seemingly rational rationale of steering to pre-defined
objectives/goals through the assessment of goal fulfilment/attainment. The risks

143
C. SEGERHOLM

connected with such a governing doctrine, particularly when stress on repeated

outcome measures increasingly becomes a central practice, have been
demonstrated historically; as in the collapse of the five years’ plans in the former
Soviet Union (Segerholm, 2007).

NOTES
1
The project was supported the European Science Foundation as part of their EUROCORE
programme and was carried-out from 2006 to 2009, project 05_ECRP_021 Fabricating quality in
European education. The project is reported in several publications, the most comprehensive one
being Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P, Segerholm, C. & Simola, H. (2011).
2
In Sweden, a ‘municipality’ is a geographical, political and administrative entity/body that is
responsible for public education, social welfare, elderly care, sports, leisure and cultural activities,
local infrastructure, etc. There are local parliaments and separate political boards responsible for
these different areas of public welfare institutions. The Swedish term ’kommun’ (‘kommuner’ in
plural) is used to designate this local entity throughout this chapter, in order to avoid the
misunderstandings sometimes detected when the concept ’municipality’ has been used to denote this
Swedish arrangement.
3
Compulsory education lasts nine years in Sweden, and children commonly start the year they
become seven years old. Most children also take part in a pre-school class (K) for one year before
they start school, and they also take part in different pre-schools or public child-care centres or
arrangements from the age of one to five years.
4
‘KomVux’ is public adult education that has to be arranged in each ‘kommun’. Some of this adult
education programmes are carried-out by a so-called ‘Folkhögskola’, which is usually secondary or
post-secondary education that is operated by organisations outside the public realm, mainly financed
by tax money.
5
All statistics in this general description were sourced from the ‘kommun’ webpage.
6
These can be accessed at www.skolverket.se
7
All schools are required to have several local plans; for example, plans in preventing mobbing and
harassment.
8
In Swedish: Öppna jämförelser.

REFERENCES

Ball, S. J. (2003). Teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2),
215–228.
Ball, S. J. (2006). Standards in education. Privatisation, profits and values. In S. J. Ball, Education
policy and social class. The selected works of Stephen J. Ball (pp. 130–142). London: Routledge.
Commission of the European Communities (21.2.2007). Communication from the commission. A
coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon
objectives in education and training. Available at http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/
education_training_youth/general_framework/c11099_en.htm
Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B., Ozga, J., Rinne, R., Segerholm, C. & Simola, H. (2009). National
policy brokering and the construction of the European education space in England, Sweden, Finland
and Scotland. Comparative Education, 45(2), 5–21.
Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B. & Varjo, J. (2009). North by northwest: Quality assurance and
evaluation processes in European education. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 121–133.
Johansson, E. (1977). The history of literacy in Sweden: In comparison with some other countries
(2nd ed.). Umeå: Umeå University.
Karlsson, H. & Segerholm, C. (2008, September). Quality assurance and evaluation (QAE) – Support
or nuisance? Swedish teachers’ views. Paper presented at the European Educational Research

144
 GLOBAL EVALUATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY

Association’s Symposium, Fabricating Quality in European Education: Teacher Professionalism,

Quality Assurance Regimes and Performance: A Comparative Study, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Karlsson, H. & Segerholm, C. (2009). [Survey data from two ‘kommuner’]. Unpublished statistical
data. Härnösand: Department of Education, Mid Sweden University.
Kvalitetsredovisning 20070615 (2007). Arbetslag 3–4 [Quality account 20070615, Teacher team 3–4].
(Available from Christina Segerholm at the Department of Education, Mid Sweden University).
Lawn, M. & Lingard, B. (2002). Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: The
role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal 1(2), 290–307.
Lindensjö, B. & Lundgren U. P. (2000). Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning [Education reforms
and political governing]. Stockholm: HLS Förlag.
Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.
Martens, K. & Balzer, C. (2004, April). Comparing governance of international organisations. The EU,
the OECD and educational policy. Paper presented to the European Consortium of Political
Research’s (ECPR) Joint Sessions – Workshop 1, International Organisations and Policy
Implementation, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ozga, J. (2005). Proposal to European Collaborative Research Projects in the Social Sciences, ECRP
2005. Proposal 05_ECRP_FP021 Fabricating quality in European education. Information about the
project available at http://www.esf.org/activities/eurocores/completed-programmes/ecrp-i-2005.html
Ozga, J. & Jones, R. (2006). Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge transfer. Journal
of Education Policy, 21(1), 1–17.
Ozga, J., Seddon, T. & Popkewitz, T. (2006). Introduction: Education research and policy – Steering the
knowledge-based economy. In J. Ozga, T. Seddon & T. Popkewitz (Eds.), World year book of
education 2006. Education research and policy: Steering the knowledge-based economy (pp. 1–14).
New York: Routledge.
Ozga, J. & Segerholm, C. (2009, September). Europe in translation: Experts and technologies meeting
national practices. Paper presented at the European Conference on Education Research (ECER),
Symposium on Fabricating Quality in Europe: Data and Education Governance, Vienna, Austria.
Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C. & Simola, H. (Eds.) (2011). Fabricating quality in
education. Data and governance in Europe. London: Routledge.
Persson, Ö. (1998). Den statliga regionala skolinspektionen 130 år 1961–1991 [The state regional
school inspection 130 years, 1961–1991]. Gävle: Statens skolinspektörers förening.
Pierre, J. & Peters B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. London: Palgrave Macmillian.
Rickardsson, G. (1980). Svensk utbildningshistoria. Skola och samhälle förr och nu [Swedish school
history. School and society now and previously]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Rosenau, J. N. (2005). Global governance as disaggregated complexity. In A. D. Ba & M. J. Hoffman
(Eds.), Contending perspectives on global governance. Coherence, contestation and world order
(pp. 131–153). London: Routledge.
Sassen, S. (2007). A sociology of globalization. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Segerholm, C. (2007). New public management under decentralising regimes in education. In
S. Kushner & N. Norris (Eds.), Dilemmas of engagement: Evaluation and the new public
management. Advances in program evaluation 10 (pp. 129–138). Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI Press.
Segerholm, C. (2009). ‘We are doing well on QAE.’ The case of Sweden. Journal of Education Policy,
(24)2, 195–209.
Segerholm, C. & Åström, E. (2007). Governance through institutionalised evaluation – Re-centralisation
and influences at local levels in higher education in Sweden. Evaluation, 13(1), 48–67.
SIRIS. (2010). Publicering av skolors och kommuners kvalitetsredovisningar [Publications of school
and municipal quality reports]. Retrieved from http://siris.skolverket.se/portal/page?_pageid=
33,90167&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Skolverket. (n.d.) SIRIS and SALSA. http://www.skolverket.se, accessed May 18, 2010.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2000). Transferring education, displacing reforms. In J. Schriewer (Ed.), Discourse
formation in comparative education (pp. 155–187). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

145
C. SEGERHOLM

Sveriges kommuner och landsting (2008). Öppna jämförelser. Grundskola. [Open comparisons.
Comprehensive education.] Available at http://brs.skl.se/publikationer/index.jsp?http://brs.skl.se/
publikationer/publdoc.jsp?searchpage=/dummy&search_titn=%2239254%22&db=KATA&from=1
&toc_length=20&currdoc=1

Christina Segerholm
Department of Education
MidSweden University

146
 SECTION III

NEW KNOWLEDGE – IDENTITIES – POLICIES

 ALJONA SANDGREN

9. MANAGERIALISM AND
ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES
Is There Space for Creativity?

Any fish can swim downstream, but only a live fish can swim upstream
(Edward C. Johnson, Fidelity Investments, 1996).

Abstract
Managerialism, according to the model of new public management (NPM),
became the main style of governance steering in most OECD countries as a
response to external, not least financial pressures. This type of governance “is
thought to enhance efficiency and outputs of higher education teaching and
research” (Currie et al., 2003), stressing the principle of doing more with less.
Western universities are urged to become entrepreneurial: ”Europe’s universities
will have to evolve so that their leadership and management capacity matches that
of modern enterprises” (in Schleicher, OECD, 2006). At the same time,
governments increase demands for accountability and quality control. The author
questions the taken for granted assumptions that managerial changes in Western
universities would automatically lead to entrepreneurialism among academics.
Instead, managerial approaches may lead to the opposite results, allowing less
space for play (Hjorth, 2003) and creativity, as shown by several studies. The
central argument is that managerialism and entrepreneurialism represent different
rationalities which need to be considered in the process of understanding
entrepreneurship.
The present study is based on data from personal observations, interviews with
academics in particular within a EU-funded research project with eight partners in
Western and Eastern Europe, EUEREK, European Universities for
Entrepreneurship – their Role in the Europe of Knowledge, recent interviews with
entrepreneurs in knowledge–based and “green” enterprises; and, in addition, an
extensive literature review.

MANAGERIALISM, A NEW TYPE OF BUREAUCRACY?

The well-known concept of New Public Management (NPM) has dominated public
sector reform for more than two decades, introduced by OECD governments in

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 149–169.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
A. SANDGREN

response to declining economic performance, fiscal deficits, changes in the

patterns of demands for government services, greater consumer expectations about
quality of services and reduced community confidence in government service
delivery. Managerialism, as a significant set of technologies and practices, can be
seen as a product that rests at the intersection of neo-liberal political rationalities
and business management prescriptions for organisational change, designed to
meet the competitive challenge of the global economy (Clarke & Newman, 1997).
NPM emphasises the role of managers and managerial approaches to
organisational change. Managerial approaches, in this context, include “executive
leadership at the expense of the professional role in decision making and an
instrumental rationality stressing the three E’s (economy, efficiency and
effectiveness) and top-down structures, such as centralization and hierarchy”
(Currie, De Angelis, De Boer, Huisman & Lacotte, 2003, p. 98).
Lynn Meek in Meek (2003), Meek & Davies (2009) has distinguished some
features of NPM as it operates in the university context:
− More full-time professional managers with increased power, moving power
from professionals to managers.
− Strengthened institutional management, enhanced institutional autonomy and
accountability and weaker, direct state control.
− Moves towards performance-based funding, budget diversification, competition
within and between service-providing organisations and market orientation.
Analysing the current rhetoric within the neo-liberal discourse on NPM, in the
context of public organisations and in particular, universities, we can find, besides
the emphasis on efficiency, accountability and control, focus on service orientation
and examples of quasi-markets, and strong expectations of entrepreneurship
development. Indeed, international or supranational organisations as well as
national governments ‘underline’ the importance of universities for economic
growth and competitiveness and encourage them to act as enterprises: “Europe’s
universities will have to evolve so that their leadership and management capacity
matches that of modern enterprises” (Schleicher, 2006, p. 4).
Labels such as the “entrepreneurial university” (Clark, 1998), the
“successful/self-reliant university” (Shattock, 2003), “academic entrepreneurship”
(Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2001; Shane, 2004) mirror the idea of turning
universities into organisational actors with respect to economic activities (De Boer,
Enders & Leisyte, 2007; Krücken & Meier, 2006). Burton Clark (1998) suggested
five pathways for transforming universities into entrepreneurial organisations: a
strengthened steering core, an expanded developmental periphery, a diversified
funding base, a stimulated academic heartland and an integrated entrepreneurial
culture. All five elements have to be present in order to make the university
successful as an entrepreneurial organisation. This model is still a popular subject
of debates. The Swedish researchers, Styhre and Lind (2010) suggested that the
entrepreneurial university could emerge as a “soft bureaucracy”, a hybrid
organisational form, comprised of both bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic
elements.

150
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

In Management Fads in Higher Education, Robert Birnbaum (2001) argued that

management fads (such as management by objectives and performance
management) arrive at higher education’s doorstep five years after their trial in
business, often just as corporations are discarding them due to the ‘cultural lag’ –
meaning that new knowledge is spreading and being disseminated within one
sector and may not be immediately known in another. In line with Birnbaum’s
argument, an interdisciplinary research approach is needed in order to study
entrepreneurship in the university context. Keeping this in mind, I will attempt to
combine research data and ideas from the social sciences, including the higher
education management field and business studies, in order to address the question:
“Is there a space for creativity in this era of managerialism and inflated
expectations of entrepreneurialism?”

RECENT STUDIES OF NPM IN THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

Recent studies of managerial, structural and organisational reform in the context of

universities do not find the expected results of improved efficiency and increase of
entrepreneurial activities. Rather, the opposite has been observed.
Research conducted by Liudvika Leisyte (2006) on the effects of NPM reforms,
such as the RAE, the Research Assessment Exercise in UK universities, on
research practices in English and Dutch universities, summarises results as follows:
...it is observed that problem choice in science to an increasing extent is
driven/affected by external users rather than a self- or curiosity-driven
process towards solving research problems. Moreover, output preferences
shift towards more applied research and a multiplication of audiences. The
perceived threat for basic research has grounds, especially in subject areas
within the humanities, for example. In addition, NPM increases
differentiation between teaching and research universities. Finally,
researchers tend to stay within the mainstream of research rather than to be
innovative and adopt risk-averse strategies in research... (p. 10).
David K. Allen (2003) argued, based on results from extensive research conducted
at UK universities, that the managerial approach is more likely to create highly
insecure environments which reinforce a vicious circle: staff being de-motivated,
cautious, less willing to take risks or exercise discretion and are more likely to
resist change. Analysing the Australian model of the “enterprising university”,
Marginson and Considine (2000) discovered only three of Burton Clark’s crucial
elements at the universities they examined, which lacked “the enhanced academic
heartland” and “the integrated entrepreneurial culture”.

ASSUMPTIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Henry Wasser (2001, p. 48) posed a critique of Clark’s (1998) idea of the
entrepreneurial university: “In response to the negative connotations traditional
academics associate with ‘entrepreneur’, emanating from a hard managerialism in
action, he (Clark) denies that divisiveness and fragmentation result when

151
A. SANDGREN

entrepreneurial behaviour dominates”. Important to note is that Wasser associated

entrepreneurship with ‘managerialism in action’. Further, he, as many others,
defined the entrepreneurial university as a ‘corporate enterprise in the knowledge
industry’, emphasising efficiency as basic, focusing on consumer needs and
operating by a powerful managerial caste (Wasser, 2001, p. 48). This view was
reflected in answers provided by some of the Swedish professors interviewed in
the EUEREK Project (European Universities for Entrepreneurship – their Role in
the Europe of Knowledge, undertaken 2004–2007) and in later studies. They were
‘clearly unwilling’ to identify with entrepreneurs because of the association to
‘dirty’ business and money-making, which is contrary to academic values.
A Swedish professor, Gunnar Törnqvist, recently published a book on creativity
(2009). He followed a number of Nobel Prize winners and studied their
environments, which seemed to promote creativity and success. In his book he
presented an Innovation Dichotomies chart where he placed the entrepreneur on
the same side of the chart as managerial ideology features, and on the opposite
side, he placed creativity, as below:

Divergent (thinking) Convergent

Playfulness Discipline
Chaos Order
Variation Uniformity
Pioneer Entrepreneur
Creativity Productivity

Törnqvist noticed that these dichotomies are not exclusive; they interact with one
another. However, he considered the role of the entrepreneur as being opposite to
that of the pioneer, and creativity as the opposite of productivity. According to
Törnqvist, the pioneer is a creative person who leads us to breakthrough
innovations and change. Such people could be found among genuine academics,
working often alone, not necessarily being appreciated by contemporaries; being
misunderstood. However, the image of the academic entrepreneur, as presented by
Törnqvist (2009), is a person with a broad social network who also knows how to
use it, is favoured by faculty, skilful in attracting grants, travels around, attending
international conferences, and is someone who finds the right contacts; in short, a
kind of successful businessman in academia.
This confirms the common assumption that has arisen in many Western
societies (both in Europe and the USA) that the entrepreneur is the same as a
capitalist/businessman or manager. Indeed, according to mainstream theories, as
Joseph Schumpeter agued in his History of Economic Analysis (1954) and as
Mark Blaug confirmed (2000), classical English economists, including Adam
Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, and the neo-classicists, Leon Walras and
Alfred Marshall, as well as John Maynard Keynes, marginalised the role of
entrepreneurs in the economy as they viewed economic progress as something
automatic. Leon Walras, for example, in his general equilibrium theory,
assumed that entrepreneurship is not itself a factor of production but rather a
function that can be carried out by any agent, the capitalist or the salaried

152
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

manager. The entrepreneur is viewed by neoclassical economists as “a

superintendent of the production process, who is responsible for determining the
profit maximising level of output for a given set of consumer preferences”
(Kirby, 2003, p. 14).
This mix-up between entrepreneurs and business managers, however, according
to my own studies, occurs due to the narrow understanding of the nature of
entrepreneurship.

ENTREPRENEURIALISM AND MANAGERIALISM – DIFFERENT RATIONALITIES?

Daniel Hjorth and Bengt Johannisson (1997) pointed out that managerialism and
entrepreneurialism represent different rationalities/ideologies. To summarise
shortly, managerialism is about managerial structures and organisation, efficiency,
hierarchy, control, bureaucratic logic and order, and rational thinking.
Entrepreneurialism, on the other hand, is often connected with uncertainty, risk,
intuition, passion, spontaneity of action. Entrepreneurship is about process, about
organising, and about movement. As Hjorth and Johannisson argued,
managerialism is an official ideology, dating back to Machiavelli’s time, which is
now becoming a norm. In contrast, entrepreneurialism has often been considered as
a phenomenon developed at the margins of society (for example, among emigrants
and women). This division between centre (managerialism) and periphery
(entrepreneurialism), according to authors, has been constructed in the struggle
between passion and interest in Western thought, described by Albert O.
Hirschman (1977). As we have learned from Adam Smith, rational interest steers
human actions in capitalist society.
According to Hjorth and Johannisson’s argument, entrepreneurialism and
managerialism need to be distinguished. This is not to say that those two
rationalities cannot co-exist; to the contrary, they need each other:
What we don’t understand enough today, according to Hjorth (2006), is what
entrepreneurship is, how it is different from management, and how and when to
shift from a managerial to an entrepreneurial reality and mode of organising; from
execution to innovation, in contexts of formal organisation. One of the central roles
of management, increasingly so, is to prepare for the opportunity creating
organisation, the possibility of the event. It cannot be planned, but prepared for.
(Hjorth, 2006)
There is always a risk, however, that official managerial ideology takes over.
Hjorth and Johannisson (1997) claim that in order to realise the benefits of them
both and at the same time challenge the dominating managerialism, unique
capabilities are needed. Amitai Etzioni (1968), a classical sociologist, argues that
such capabilities could be found among intellectuals who have characteristics
similar to those of entrepreneurs – being unattached, using the networks and
having a critical view. This would mean that universities are the right places for
combinations of managerial and entrepreneurial ideologies. Let us explore this idea
and investigate where academics and entrepreneurs could find some common
grounds.

153
A. SANDGREN

RECONCEPTUALISING ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

Taking as a point of departure, Hjorth’s (2006) ideas on the nature of

entrepreneurship and how it is different from management, I would like to
reconceptualise entrepreneurship in order to better understand these phenomena
and how they operate in universities.
In line with Birnbaum’s (2001) idea of the “cultural lag”, I would like, first of
all, to turn to business literature in order to explore the concept of
entrepreneurship. The present chapter does not have the ambition of covering all
sources and current discussions on the concept of entrepreneurship; rather, I have
chosen some contemporary ideas which were considered relevant and helpful for
the analysis of the process of university transformation towards entrepreneurialism.
In order to achieve a broader understanding of the nature of entrepreneurship and
get to the roots of the concept it is necessary to analyse the literature on the topic
from several disciplines. In addition, I have conducted, along with colleagues
through the EUEREK Project (including follow-up interviews later on), some
interviews with entrepreneurs in knowledge intensive organisations, the narratives
of which will be used in order to further elucidate.

FROM THE HISTORY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The word “entrepreneur” has had different connotations throughout the years:
between the 12th and 15th centuries, in France, the verb entreprendre, from which
the noun entrepreneur is derived, was used to denote a person who ‘does
something’; or rather, “gets things done”. Since the 16th century, this term has
been associated with risk. French economist Richard Cantillon (1680–1743) named
people who “buy at a certain price and sell at an uncertain price”, entrepreneurs.
Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) also connected entrepreneurs to risk. British
economist Mark Blaug (2000) noticed that while Cantillon clearly differentiated
between the entrepreneur and the capitalist, classical economists have failed to
isolate the entrepreneurial function from that of pure ownership of capital.

THE SCHUMPETERIAN ENTREPRENEUR

It is Joseph A. Schumpeter (1883–1950) whom we should thank for bringing back

the entrepreneur into economics and who emphasised the significant role that
entrepreneurs play within the economy and society (Audretsch, 2003; Swedberg,
2000). Schumpeter (1961), in his Theory of Economic Development, originally
published in 1911, proposed a theory of “creative destruction”, where the role of
entrepreneur is emphasised as crucial for economic development and growth.
New firms with entrepreneurial spirit displace less innovative incumbents, a
process which ultimately leads to a higher degree of economic growth.
Schumpeter pointed out that the entrepreneur “is not a run-of-the-mill business
executive or even owner of a successful firm”. The entrepreneur is “the modern
type of ‘captain of industry’ – obsessively seeking an innovative edge” (quoted in
McCraw, 2007, p. 70).

154
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

In the second edition of his Theory of Economic Development (1926), Schumpeter

defined entrepreneurship as the making of “new combinations” of already existing
materials and forces. According to his analysis, entrepreneurship consists of
innovations and “doing the thing” (1939, p. 272) as opposed to inventions.
Generating creative ideas is not enough; one has to bring them to the world, to
society and to market. Schumpeter stressed the breakthrough nature of such
innovations. The Schumpeterian entrepreneur breaks-up an old tradition and
creates a new one. As Schumpeter (1939) noted: “All companies react ‘adaptively’
to change, but creative ‘responses’ come only from innovative acts by
entrepreneurs. Their innovations can take many forms, for example “the case of
new commodity”, a new form of organisation” and the opening up of new
markets”. This view is contrary to Törnqvist’s, who has claimed that pioneers are
responsible for breakthrough innovations rather than entrepreneurs.
No one is an entrepreneur forever or all the time according to Schumpeter –
only when he or she is actually doing the innovative activity. Analysing the
motivation behind entrepreneurship, Schumpeter distinguished three factors:
1) dream and will to found a private kingdom; 2) the will to conquer; and 3) the joy
of creating. Profit-making is not the main driving force for entrepreneurs.
Contrasting Adam Smith’s idea that self-interest is a prime motivator in human
behaviour, the Schumpeterian entrepreneur, is ‘above hedonistic interests, such as
profit-making’, and is, as one of Schumpeter’s Harvard colleagues noticed, driven
by “love of activity for its own sake, love of creative activity, love of distinction,
love of victory over others, love of the game.” (quoted in McCraw, 2007, p. 75).
Passion is indeed the driving force for entrepreneurs, as was confirmed by our
interviewees. They stressed that without passion to support their visions, ideas and
ideals, they would not have been able to cope with all the obstacles entrepreneurs
encounter in their journeys towards success. It often takes at least two to three
years or more to see the results of their business. As Alf Rehn (2004) pointed out
in the “Pessimistic Entrepreneur”, there is no guarantee for success; on the
contrary, failure is often to be expected. On the other hand, failure could be very
useful in the learning process. However, as confirmed by many, attitudes to failure
differ between different countries and cultural contexts (Sandgren, 2007).
Schumpeter also stressed that the entrepreneur more often relies on intuition
rather than on rational reasoning. Creativity is a necessary component of
entrepreneurship, as can be concluded from his theory of “creative destruction”. As
one of our interviewees (2010) formulated it: “I am an artist. Creativity is needed –
not only in terms of the original idea but also in the implementation of the solution –
to see the whole picture, the business solution in the environmental field.
Personally, I need to keep up the artistic view”.
Schumpeter underlined the role of entrepreneurship in undermining traditional
social structures and the scarcity of a truly high-level ability for such activity. As
an illustrative example, we can safely assume that everybody can sing, but there is
only one ‘Caruso’.
It is important to note, that according to Schumpeter, the entrepreneur is not
necessarily an owner of capital; he/she rather risks other people’s money –
therefore, risk-taking in the sense of one’s own financial resources is not the

155
A. SANDGREN

distinguishing features of an entrepreneur. This often goes against the assumptions

that one would need to have start-capital (finances) in order to make business.
Some of the interviewees at Russian universities revealed that in their opinion, the
entrepreneur is a person who invests in innovative ideas, i.e. is the investor, and
that as a result, academics need to wait until such an investor appears before
bringing their innovations to market.
Returning to the risk-taking issue, the Schumpeterian entrepreneur, of course,
often risks his/her own reputation as well as time spent and dreams. As mentioned,
there is no guarantee for success. Uncertainty goes along with entrepreneurship
which runs contrary to the managerial ideology which is about striving for control,
security and predictability.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY TODAY

Thomas K. McCraw (2007, p. 458) pointed out that nowadays many economists
add entrepreneurship to the three factors of production – land, labour, and capital –
thanks to Schumpeter, however, they still downplay the idea. Entrepreneurship is
difficult to measure, and it is impossible to express mathematically since it does
not fit formal models. Entrepreneurial gains are not permanent returns, but the fact
that entrepreneurship contributes to economic growth, is expressed by many
researchers (Audretsch, 2007), as well as politicians.
In any case, there still remains an old, narrow understanding of entrepreneurship
as being primarily profit-making, as previously mentioned. However, the theory of
entrepreneurship is developing, exemplified by an emerging European school of
thought (Hjorth, Jones & Gartner, 2008), which is still not mainstream. It
emphasises creativity and creative approaches to entrepreneurship research as well
as the importance of social and cultural context, pointing out the embeddedness of
entrepreneurship in local culture. Philosophers, sociologists and anthropologists
are contributing to the discussions and research on entrepreneurship within this
school. Rickard Swedberg (2000) underlined the importance of different social
sciences perspectives for the study of entrepreneurs. Ideas of entrepreneurship as
social change that were presented by Chris Steyaert and Daniel Hjorth (2006)
emphasised that entrepreneurship should be understood as a complex social-
creative process that influences, multiplies, transforms, re-imagines and alters the
outlook of the space of society in which it is grounded and contextualised.
Sara Sarasvati’s theory of effectuation contributed to changing our thoughts
about entrepreneurship. Sarasvati (2001) confirmed that there is a difference
between managerial and entrepreneurial thinking, often not recognised in MBA
education. According to Sarasvati, entrepreneurs use “effectuation” reasoning, as
opposed to causal rationality, which characterises managerial thinking. The latter
begins with a pre-determined goal and a given set of means, and seeks to identify
optimal – fastest, cheapest, most efficient – alternatives to achieving a goal. Causal
reasoning is based on the logic, ‘to the extent that we can predict the future, we can
control it’. Effectual reasoning begins with a set of means and allows goals to
emerge contingently over time from the varied imaginations and aspirations of the
founders and the people they interact with (Ibid., p. 2). Thus, we could conclude

156
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

that it is not necessary, as mainstream theory teaches us, to investigate market

opportunities before starting businesses. The point of departure, according to
Sarasvati (2003), is based on a strong self-understanding, about who one is, what
one knows and whom one knows. This, in turn, leads us to the conclusion that we
can create markets by ourselves, instead of simply responding to demand, or
looking for opportunities. We can create opportunities!

DOING THE THING

Proactive attitude and behaviour (“doing the thing”), creating a business of one’s
own, the job one dreamed of and searching for financing for one’s own innovations
is a necessary component of entrepreneurship. As confirmed by recently (2010)
interviewed Swedish ‘green’ entrepreneurs, it is not enough to be creative/
inventive; one has to put one’s ideas into action. We can find such attitudes even
among artists, as for example, in the Swedish popular dance group, Bounce or
Circus Cirkör. As Bounce’s members expressed it, they just wanted to dance and
that is why they started their own business. Circus Cirkör’s founder, Tilde
Björfors, and managing director, Kaisa Lind, recently published a book entitled
Inside a Circus Heart (2010) where they present a story of their enterprise, or how
they “made dream a reality”. They emphasised that it is important to do what one
is best at and what one likes to do.
This confirms the definition of an entrepreneur, given by Robert Reich (2001).
According to him, an entrepreneur is a person who “combines great scientific or
artistic imagination with a powerful instinct for what would move the public”. He
provided examples from the history of entrepreneurial geniuses such as William
Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Claude Monet, as well as Bill
Gates, founder of Microsoft and Jim Clark, founder of Netscape. Reich’s view
could also be useful for understanding the nature of ‘social’, ‘cultural’ or ‘green’
and ‘academic’ entrepreneurs.
As Kirby (2003) explained, in ‘social/cultural’ entrepreneurship the main driver
is not wealth-creation or business capability; rather, it is creativity and the
enrichment of life through challenging convention and opening ways of thinking
and behaving that previously did not exist. Many successful businesses, however,
have been created by such people.

INTRAPRENEUR OR REBEL?

Entrepreneurs in large organisations/corporations – so-called intrapreneurs – could

be compared to rebels if we follow Gifford Pinchot’s (1985) argumentation. He
described their lives dramatically: “while coming to work, they should be prepared
to be fired everyday” and “they ask for forgiveness rather than permission”.
Intrapreneurs often work “underground”, developing the ideas they believe in,
which could be different from the official ones. They may work alone or in smaller
groups. In this context, defining them as agents of change seems suitable. It is quite
obvious that intrapreneurs are not opportunists; they do not easily accept the status
quo of things and they possess the ability of critical thinking which may lead to

157
A. SANDGREN

change in the organisations in which they work. Their commitment is of

resistant/contrarian character –“cheeky commitment”, as Björfors and Lind (2010)
called it, which, in my view, demands a strong sense of integrity and engagement
(or commitment). “Contrarians”, as they are called by Edward C. Johnson (1996),
the owner of Fidelity Investments, oppose orthodox thinking, and this is a
company’s key to success. As Johnson confirmed: the philosophy of Fidelity is
(and was) the freedom to try new ideas, to learn from mistakes, and to build on
success (Ibid., p. 167). Contrarians, thus, are persons not easy to work with, as they
do not always strive to please others.

UNPLEASANT CREATIVITY

Alf Rehn (2010), through his book Dangerous Ideas, challenges our general
assumptions that creativity in organisations is often associated with something
nice or comfortable, which pleases both leadership and employees. He argued that
creativity, which can lead to breakthrough innovations, is not always pleasant and
comfortable, but rather, it can be the opposite; it is provocative and challenges
norms. He stressed creativity’s contrarian character. Diversity, or a mix of
different kinds of individuals, is another crucial factor for a creative organisation.
Diversity is not necessarily comfortable – by diversity the author means ethnical,
social, gender and professional diversity as well as different mind-sets within a
given group. Non-creative persons, for example, tend to prioritize order and
stability, mundane routine, which is not the main preoccupation of creative
persons.
As Rehn observed, creativity for creativity’s sake is not always a good thing.
Rehn mentioned the importance of keeping a balance between creativity and
productivity in organisations, though I would argue that creativity does not run
contrary to productivity. Creativity may not always lead to the development of a
product (in the university it could be a book, a scientific article or a project, and
also new theories and ideas) but it could eventually become such a product – and
to “do it”, reverberating from the above-mentioned, is crucial for an
entrepreneur.
On the other hand, too much stress on productivity and short-term results in
knowledge environments such as universities, as observed in the higher education
management studies and discourse, can damage creativity and originality, which
Robert Cowen pointed out at the 2010 CESE (Comparative Education Society)
Conference. Meek (2002) warned us that instead, such stress could lead to the
development of mediocrity.
Creativity and entrepreneurship need time to develop and “space for play”
(Hjorth, 2003, 2006). As experience shows, people’s creativity is often
dependent on inspiration, an encouraging environment and other non-tangible
factors, such as shared values, an allowing atmosphere and the freedom of action
providing such a “space for play” or, in other terms, a certain kind of allowing
organisational culture. An encouraging environment is particularly important in
large organisations, in order to let the intrapreneurs, as mentioned before,
emerge.

158
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

SELF-GOVERNANCE OR AGENCY AND DOMINATION; IS THERE AN

IN-BUILT CONTRADICTION?

Raising money for ‘what one wants to do’ and becoming self-reliant, could make
entrepreneurship a liberating force and in some sense represents a bottom-up
approach. As many of the interviewed entrepreneurs confirmed, they chose to
become entrepreneurs because they wanted to be in charge of their own time and
work on their own terms, “to create their own kingdom”, even though it could mean
more work, less security and no guarantee for success. This is the price they pay for
freedom and their autonomy. This raisonnement is accepted even in the neo-liberal
rhetoric and within the knowledge work discourse which emphasises the role of
individuals in organisations, their self-actualisation as a result of more autonomy and
their freedom to act (at least on the rhetorical level). In the business and management
literature, the discussion is about self-management, ‘hands-off’ management, with
less hierarchy, less external control, more flexibility and teamwork. There is an
understanding (in the rhetoric) that entrepreneurs/intrapreneurs need “space for play”
(Hjorth, 2003, 2006), creativity, trying-out their crazy ideas and also space for
reflection (Sandgren, 2007).
As mentioned, entrepreneurship has the potential of being a liberating force. In
spite of the fact that power is becoming more diffused, new forms of domination
emerge such as inner and internalised control (Foucault, 1982, 1991; Lemke,
2001), based on self-examination, evaluation and reflection (Costea, Crump &
Amiridis, 2008). Researchers talk about the consequences of boundary less work
(Näswall, Hellgren & Sverke, 2008), or post-bureaucratic organisations
(Maravelias, 2006), where instead of direct regulative rules, expectations are
implicit, informal, unspoken, or taken for granted (Allvin, 2008) resulting in
increased control and domination.
Managerialism, using Foucault’s ideas of governmentality, is a form of
governmentality and disciplinary knowledge, striving for control and order.
However, it also includes elements of self-governance, or agency. Managerialism
assumes autonomous, individualistic, transparent and self-interested, rational
individuals admonished to taking responsibility and being self-motivated
(Fitzimons, 1999). So far, this does not contradict the nature of entrepreneurship.
Managerial definitions of quality, efficiency, improved productivity or self-
management construct a particular version of autonomy (Ibid.). Following the neo-
liberal logic, it is becoming our ‘responsibility’ to live and work entrepreneurially.
How does this correlate with the voluntary nature of entrepreneurship? Another
question is: does management really play a supportive rather than a dominating
role in organisations such as universities, leaving enough time and space for
academic entrepreneurs “to play”? This remains to be seen.

ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURS AND ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The view developed here is that academic entrepreneurs are comparable to

entrepreneurs in the traditional Schumpeterian view; they act in ways similar to
entrepreneurs, by using new combinations of disciplines, concepts, methodologies

159
A. SANDGREN

and data to attain novel findings and get the attention of their peers. During a
seminar within the EUEREK Project in 2005, Michael Shattock, former Registrar
of Warwick University, pointed out that a good academic is already an
entrepreneur. As an example, he brought up the case of the “Double Helix”
(Watson, 1968). Two researchers (later, Nobel Prize winners), Francis Crick and
James D. Watson, developed their idea of DNA’s structure, later to become a
revolutionary finding in science, as a side-activity without the financial or even
psychological support of their colleagues, driven only by their passion, ideas and
‘joy of creating’.
Academic entrepreneurs (at least the best of them) are rarely driven by financial
profits; similar to many entrepreneurs, especially social or cultural entrepreneurs;
they are driven by passion, by their ideas but also by prestige. Financial and/or
moral rewards are important, of course, but they do not represent the prime goal.
This has to do with the character of academic work. In his speech “Science as a
Vocation”, Weber (1919) noted that scientific work, for all its
compartmentalisation, can only yield lasting results if it is carried forward by
passion. A human activity devoid of passion is, in Weber’s words, virtually
inhuman. Curiosity is another word often used for this drive in the academic
environment.
In the new, more commercial and narrow view, the entrepreneurial role of
academics is focused on undertaking activities for commercialising academic
inventions through licensing or spin-off formations (Buenstorf, 2006; Geiger,
2006; Shane, 2004). An issue to consider here is that academics produce
innovations themselves and could (if at all) then commercialise them, sometimes
(or often) without the university becoming involved. The direct economic outcome
of commercialised university research is, according to a majority of recent studies,
rather small in most European countries. The economic value of research results in
society, however, is considerable, but this value is generated indirectly as results
are being used by persons or companies outside the university, as stressed by Åsa
Lindholm-Dahlstrand (2006).
Looking into the nature of academic entrepreneurship, we find that many
academics are involved in consultancy work as part of the “third mission” of
universities. Indeed, this is a source of external income, although it could be
questioned whether all consultancies could be considered to be ‘academic
entrepreneurialism’. At one of the UK universities studied within the EUEREK
project some of these activities were discouraged, being considered as not
academically entrepreneurial (Sandgren & Strömqvist, 2010) – “academic
capitalism” (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997) could be a more suitable term for those
cases, also adequate in describing the type of academic entrepreneur defined by
Törnqvist. This is not to say that such activities are not needed, but further
reflection on what academic entrepreneurship ought to look like in a long-term
perspective is required, taking into consideration academic values and academic
integrity.
At the 2010 CESE Conference I was asked whether academic entrepreneurs
exist in reality. The answer is “yes, indeed, they exist”, and perhaps
surprisingly, not only among natural scientists, engineers or medical researchers

160
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

as we would expect, but also within the humanities. When we approached the
Faculty of Humanities at Lund University in Sweden (as part of the EUEREK
Project), we were directly introduced to one of them – Dr. Sven Strömqvist –
who at that time, was the Director of the Humanities Laboratory (HumLab),
which is a dynamic place where he had developed many interdisciplinary
research projects. It is necessary to underline that he did not work alone; he was
lucky enough to have a supportive environment and understanding faculty
leadership, which showed great respect for his integrity. As defined by Alison
Kirk (1996), academic integrity is the absence of cheating and plagiarism. This
definition is too narrow; I would argue that this concept includes a complexity
of virtues and beliefs with normative constraints (following the definition
of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Rather, integrity here, in my
view, is connected to the previously discussed “contrarian” nature of
intrapreneurial/entrepreneurial behaviour, which is also connected to personal
identity and autonomy.
In order to understand existing attitudes towards entrepreneurship among
academics, I posed an open question about the understanding or definition of
entrepreneurship to senior managers, academic leaders and professors at three
universities in Sweden in connection to the EUEREK Project. Responses have
been rich, as presented in the next section.

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

As mentioned before, some interviewed senior academics expressed a rather

narrow, economically-based, conventional view of entrepreneurship as being
focused on money-making, and even some expressed irritation about being
identified with entrepreneurs. Others, to my surprise, the majority of academic
leaders such as faculty deans and heads of departments, demonstrated a wider
understanding of entrepreneurship, including in this a range of creative and
innovative activities, not necessarily things that are immediately commercial, but
that are rooted in core academic values. These interviewees also stressed the
importance of being self-reliant.
Proactive behaviour among academics is not new as confirmed by our studies.
There is a general understanding that one has to search for money in order to do
what one wants to do. In fact, research grants constitute a major part of external
income at the studied universities. In Sweden and Finland, for example, these
grants represent over 30%, and up to 37% for some research universities in the
UK. Researchers (for example in Sweden) compete for funding, not only with their
Swedish colleagues for national research money through research councils, with
less than 10% expected success rates for each round of applications, but also with
their European colleagues for grants funded by European programmes. However,
Swedish research councils and foundations increasingly limit calls for application
to pre-defined, targeted programmes and topic areas. This development does not
promote diversity or the development of new ideas. Instead, many researchers play
it safe, follow the money and behave like Cinderella’s step sisters in cutting their
heels in order to fit into the glass slipper (Lambert, Sandgren & Strömqvist, 2005).

161
A. SANDGREN

This raises a question about academic integrity, or how far could one could go in
order to survive. Another question concerns the type of management and
leadership needed for entrepreneurship to flourish. While talking about their
colleague in the Faculty of Humanities, the faculty leadership pointed out that such
types of entrepreneurs – driven by their passion – need managers around them for
support and in order to maintain the everyday life of the projects they start. They
also noticed that entrepreneurs should be left alone, and that there is a need to give
them space for creating and developing their ideas. Leaders should be aware of
their strong integrity.

Incentives and Rewards

In discussing entrepreneurship, including academic entrepreneurship, the role of
incentives and rewards should be mentioned. “Entrepreneurs follow the money”, as
expressed by contemporary economist William J. Baumol in 2007, in his public
lecture, organised by the Globalisation Council, advisory to the Swedish
government, in Stockholm. Yet, as argued earlier, the money is not the main
motivation, but the effort should be rewarded in some way, not necessarily
economically. The personal satisfaction of a job fulfilled, and a dream come true
and perhaps even respect and appreciation from others is also important. However,
the possibility to do what one wants to do is in some way dependent on the
availability of financial resources. For researchers to search for funding and write
project applications demands a lot of working hours and diminishes spare time.
The EUEREK findings showed, however, that there were very few incentives in
place for such entrepreneurial activities at many universities in Sweden, Spain or
Finland for example. Academic career structures, promotion and status mostly
attach little or no importance to such activities, in contrast to the policy rhetoric
(Sandgren & Strömqvist, 2006, 2010). Academic careers and promotion still
depend primarily on scientific publication and, to a lesser degree, teaching
experience. In the UK there is some seed money for seeking funding. The
International Business School at Jönköping University, Sweden, offers some
bonuses for successfully landing research grants. Professors/researchers receive up
to 4% of the project budget sum for their disposal, for successful grants. Lund
University has been offering seed money to encourage project applications in some
faculties. Also, academics responsible for successful applications get some
percentage of the project grants landed. Such rewards are however, more of an
exception than the rule.
As I have learned, searching for funds is indeed a time-consuming activity with
uncertain results. It requires a lot of personal engagement and relies on individual
initiative, as do most entrepreneurial activities, and as a Swedish researcher
sarcastically noted about the large project grant he applied for and won, his reward
consisted of “no summer holidays and no free Sundays”. The department
leadership did not relieve him of some of his other work tasks, nor was he provided
with administrative support. He had to run the project and write the reports in his
“free time”.

162
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

Motivation and supportive environments were seen the most important factors for
entrepreneurialism in the academic context, as pointed out by many of our
interviewees. I would argue that one cannot expect academics to behave
entrepreneurially by ordering them or by making it their responsibility, as it
demands a lot of personal efforts besides the everyday responsibilities and raises
issues of academic freedom. In any case, this would not be possible in the long-run
as, in my view, entrepreneurship is not an everyday activity and in some sense the
entrepreneur is a hero. There is a lot of literature today, however, expressing the
opposite opinion, that the entrepreneur is not a hero, denying the special abilities
and efforts needed of the entrepreneur. The major incentive, according to
interviews in Sweden, for academics to be active in applying for research grants is
to get more time for research instead of teaching.

Leadership and Governance

Many universities studied through the EUEREK Project experienced a strong
movement towards more centralised organisations with a focus on a strengthened
central management and new control and report systems. In Swedish universities,
for example, this development, including the centralisation of external contacts,
was not received positively by academics at the faculty level. It was seen more as a
bother than a promoter of entrepreneurial activity. “Before, departments were more
or less independent, governed by a department board and a director or prefekt,
elected by colleagues, but now the directors are mostly appointed from above.
There is also stronger steering from the faculty leadership level” (EUEREK
interviewee, 2005, Sweden.
In some large traditional universities, the schools or faculties had already
developed their own entrepreneurial activities and direct contacts; they therefore
felt no need for a new centralised structure. Attempts to “vacuum clean the whole
university for exploitable ideas”, as one centrally-placed bureaucrat at a large
Swedish university described his task, were not welcomed at these levels.
Centralised leadership is not working so well at large classical universities, but
some of the successful faculties and schools, such as the Lund Institute of
Technology and the Faculty of Medicine as well as the International Business
School at Jönköping University, had rather charismatic leaders who served as
inspiration to their staff and demonstrated an openness for innovation, as
exemplified in our interviews with them. One could sense the spirit of innovation
and engagement in such schools – a kind of emotional elation.

Culture
Bernice Martin (1975, p. 113) argued that one of the most appropriate models of
the university is using the metaphor of the family, which can embody a more
flexible and less rigidly ascriptive pattern of behaviour. Common socialisation,
shared values, smallness of scale, careful initiation into a differentiation alongside
selected symbols of common scholarly endeavour can combine in a delicate

163
A. SANDGREN

balance of ritual distancing and personal spontaneity. “These are the safest homes
of humanistic values” (Ibid.). The major consequence of the radical 1960s,
according to Martin, has been to strengthen the thrust of the bureaucratic ethos at
the expense of the traditionalist and personal” (Ibid.). Recent studies of creative
research environments, more specifically, where Nobel Prize winners could be
found (Törnqvist, 2009), showed that small egalitarian non-hierarchical
organisations with an optimal number of researchers of four to seven persons, with
close interpersonal communication, are the best for promoting creativity and
innovation. To me, this parallels the size of a traditional academic department or
chair. Recent managerial moves towards establishing larger units, however, could
destroy such cultures based on close interpersonal relations and diminish creativity,
as discussed below.

Mergers – Creating Featureless Colossi?

One of the ideas behind the merging of units is managerial efficiency; to share the
costs of administrative and other infrastructure. Another idea is that one can
achieve synergy effects when one reaches a certain number, or “critical mass”, of
teachers/researchers who are “dealing with the same or similar things”. However, it
is not so easy to communicate with a large number of persons on an everyday basis
in corridors and meeting rooms. Instead, individuals start e-mailing their
department colleagues, increasingly working from home, and the risk of using the
department more as a brand and a mail-box becomes imminent. Interesting to note,
also, that most administrators from the former smaller units still remain as
employees within the merged departments, although their tasks tend to become
more specific, narrow, or even mechanical in character, which makes some
administrators unhappy: they do not feel needed as much as before. The role of the
department secretaries in creating and providing a family atmosphere at their
organisations should not be underestimated. These administrators’ role was
supportive, indeed such secretaries were personally engaged in the everyday life of
the department and kept rather close informal relations with some doctoral
students.
I have experienced how a sudden merger at a UK university damaged the
informal atmosphere of a traditional academic department. The merged school
management turned into a machine, became distant and formal, and as a result,
was not necessarily more effective. Because of the school size, it became
difficult to keep track of all the administrative or managerial tasks; once
dropped into the “machine”, a paper to be processed could lie around
unattended for quite a while. A new manager for the merged school was chosen
from the former department administrative staff, without adequate managerial
qualifications, and received the title of School Manager, excising control over
the academic faculty.
As a result of this development, interesting researchers started to leave, and with
them, creative ideas and projects were vanishing which could lead to negative
consequences for research and education.

164
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

SUMMARY

Entrepreneurialism and managerialism represent different rationalities.

Managerialism is about control and order; entrepreneurialism, in a broader
understanding, is about passion, creativity and movement. The great challenge for
academic organisations is to find the right balance between the two.
Birnbaum (2001) is right, in my view, in his observation that, while in business
and business studies, people are gaining a better understanding of the broader
nature of entrepreneurship, many universities still see it merely as a money-making
activity that is focused on immediate returns. This is indicated by the observed
recent managerial changes inspired by New Public Management, including re-
centralisation and a move towards more hierarchical structures, instead of flat
organisations and empowerment, and more control instead of support and
consistent reward systems. Academic freedom, critical approaches and the pursuit
of truth are challenged in this process, making researchers become more
opportunistic by opting for ‘safe’ directions in research. The family-like
atmosphere at smaller departments is destroyed in mergers, turning them into
featureless colossi.
There is, of course, a difference between entrepreneurs and academics in terms
of the nature of their work. The pursuit of truth as the main component of
academic life is not necessarily the goal of the entrepreneurial career. Otherwise,
academics and entrepreneurs share passion for what they do; they have visions,
take risks (the academic career is also a risky business), and engage in long-term
thinking, creativity, innovation and learning throughout life. Both academics and
entrepreneurs depend on trust in their work and an encouraging environment.
Freedom to think and to act, to question the status quo, is the most important for
both entrepreneurs and academics’ innovation. Making profit, according to several
studies in the field, is not the main driving force, neither for academics nor for
entrepreneurs. For entrepreneurs it has always been important to be proactive and
self-reliant and it is becoming necessary for academics as well. Self-reliance could
actually help in safe-guarding individual academic integrity. As can be seen, we
could find many more similarities between academics and entrepreneurs than we
might have expected.
Universities have been knowledge temples and ‘bottom-heavy’ organisations for
many centuries; but while business organisations copy the best features from
university organisations such as team working, autonomy of individuals and power
of professionals, universities are turning into clumsy bureaucracies, with
“surveillance at the heart of things” (Bronwyn & Petersen, 2005). In my view, it is
perhaps too early (or too late?) to talk about post-bureaucratic organisations in the
context of Western universities.
The studies analysed did not show any causal link between managerial changes
at universities and the development of entrepreneurial culture. Managerialist
ideology is constructed on the basis of bureaucratic logic incorporating business
goals. There is a tendency to turn university employees into ‘cogs’, but ‘cogs’
cannot behave entrepreneurially. This is contrary to the nature of entrepreneurship
as well as academic values and integrity and it also represents a conflict between

165
A. SANDGREN

two rationalities, where managerial values tend to dominate and leave little room
for entrepreneurialism and creativity, despite the current rhetoric.
As experience shows, in case of too much pressure and control, lack of
tolerance for failures or critical thinking, people, even “Contrarians”, tend to
become opportunistic or choose exit-strategies instead of trying to change the
status quo (Sandgren & Strömqvist, 2010). I was born and raised in the former
Soviet Union and experienced how power domination turned conceptions of trust
and commitment into jokes and caused general cynicism and suspicion towards
any power exercises.
As a final remark, I suggest that it would be wiser to link to the historical roots
of the university organisation and its ideas and values, which are not entirely
different from entrepreneurialism, in their broader meaning.
We can learn from best practice developed over 800 years, adapting it to new
demands of becoming entrepreneurial organisations, instead of ‘throwing the baby
with the bathwater’ and turning universities into large bureaucratised enterprises
with little concern for creativity and entrepreneurship.

REFERENCES

Allen, D. K. (2003). Organisational climate and strategic change in higher education: Organisational
insecurity. Higher Education, 46(1), 61–92.
Allvin, M. (2008). New rules of work: Exploring the boundaryless job. In K. Näswall, J. Hellgren &
M. Sverke (Eds.), The individual in the changing working life (pp. 19–45). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Entrepreneurship: A survey of the literature. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.
eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=1837
Audretsch, D. B. (2007). The entrepreneurial society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baumol, W. J. (2007, September) Entrepreneurship, corruption and misguided virtues, presentation at
the conference, organised by the Globalisation Council, advisory to the Swedish government,
Stockholm, Sweden, http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/9022
Birnbaum, R. (2001). Management fads in higher education. Where they come from. What they do. Why
they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Björfors, T. & Lind, K. (2010). Inuti ett cirkushjärta [Inside a Circus Heart]. Sweden: Circus Cirkör.
Blaug, M. (2000). Entrepreneurship before and after Schumpeter. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Entrepreneurship,
the social science view (pp. 76–89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bronwyn, D. & Petersen, E. B. (2005). Intellectual workers (un)doing neoliberal discourse.
International Journal of Critical Psychology, 13, 32–54.
Buenstorf, G. (2006, June). Is academic entrepreneurship good or bad for science? Empirical evidence
from the Max Planck Society. Paper presented at the 11th International Joseph A. Schumpeter
Society’s Conference, Innovation, Competition and Growth: Schumpeterian Perspectives, Nice,
France.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organisational pathways of transformation.
Oxford: IAU Press/Pergamon.
Clarke, J. & Newman, J. (1997). The managerial state: Power, politics and ideology in the remaking of
social welfare. London: Sage.
Costea, B., Crump, N. & Amiridis, K. (2008). Managerialism, the therapeutic habitus and the self in
contemporary organizing. Human Relations, 61(5), 661–685.
Cowen, R. (2010, August). Creativity and competence in comparative education. Lecture conducted at
the Comparative Education Society of Europe’s XXIV Conference, Enlightenment, Creativity and
Education: Polities, Politics and Performances, Uppsala, Sweden.

166
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

Currie, J., De Angelis, R., De Boer, H., Huisman, J. & Lacotte, C. (2003). Globalizing practices and
university responses. Westport: London, Praeger.
De Boer, H. F., Enders, J. & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The
organisational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.
Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society: A theory of societal and political processes. New York: Free
Press.
Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (2001). Universities and global knowledge economy. A triple
helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Continuum, Science, Technology and the
International Political Economy Series.
EUEREK. (2006). European universities for entrepreneurship: Their role in the Europe of knowledge.
European Commission CIT2-CT-2004–506051. Retrieved from http://www.euerek.info
Fitzsimons, P. (1999). Managerialism and education. In Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education,
M. Peters, P. Ghiraldelli, B. Žarnić & A. Gibbons (Eds.). Retrieved from http://www.ffst.hr/
Encyclopaedia/doku.php?id=managerialsim_and_education
Foucault, M. (1982). Technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman & P. H. Hutton (Eds.),
Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). Amherst: The University of
Massachusetts Press.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault
effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). (R. Braidotti, Trans.). (Rev. edn.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Geiger, R. L. (2006). The quest for ‘economic relevance’ by US research universities. Higher
Education Policy, 19, 411–431.
Hjorth, D. (2003). Rewriting entrepreneurship – For a new perspective on organizational creativity.
Lund: Liber, Copenhagen Business School Press.
Hjorth, D. (2006, November). Entrepreneurialism and managerialism. Keynote address presented at the
Rethinking Entrepreneurialism in the University Context Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia.
organised by Stockholm University with funding from the Swedish Institute
Hjorth, D. & Johannisson, B. (1997). The ugly duckling of organizing – On entrepreneurialism and
managerialism. Retrieved from www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/1997/pdf/44pdf/
Hjorth, D., Jones, C. & Gartner, W. B. (2008). Recreating/Recontextualising Entrepreneurship.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(2), 81–84.
Hirschman, A.O. (1977). The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before its
Triumph, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
Johnson, E. C. (1996). Adventures of a contrarian. Daedalus, 125(2), 167–182.
Kirby, D. A. (2003). Entrepreneurship. Berkshire:McGraw-Hill Education.
Kirk, A. (1996). Learning and the marketplace: A philosophical, cross-cultural (and occasionally
irreverent) guide for business and academe. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Krücken, G. & Meier, F. (2006). Turning university into an organizational actor. In G. S. Drori,
J. W. Meyer & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization. World society and organizational
change (pp. 241–257). New York: Oxford University.
Lambert, B., Sandgren, A. & Strömqvist, G. (2006). Swedish higher education, research and innovation
policies: Universities and engines of growth, EUEREK. Retrieved from www.euerek.info
Leisyte, L. (2006, November). The effects of new public management on research practices in English
and Dutch universities. Paper presented at the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and
Knowledge, Colloquium on Research and Higher Education Policy, Universities as Centres of
Research and Knowledge Creation: An Endangered Species?, Paris, France.
Lemke, T. (2001). The birth of bio-politics: Michael Foucault’s lectures at the College de France on
neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2), 190–207.
Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å. (2006, June). Kommersialisering av universitets forskning [Commercialisation
of university research]. Lecture conducted at the Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research
Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from www.esbri.se/referat_visa_b.asp?id=58

167
A. SANDGREN

Maravelias, C. (2006, November). Freedom at work in post-bureaucratic organizations. Paper presented

at the Rethinking Entrepreneurialism in the University Context, Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia,
organised by Stockholm University with funding from the Swedish Institute
Marginson, S. & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university. Power, governance and reinvention
in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, B. (1975). The mining of Ivory Tower. In P. Sealbury (Ed.), Universities in the Western world.
New York: The Free Press.
Meek, V. L. (2002). On the road to mediocrity? Governance and management of Australian higher
education in the market place. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher
education. National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 235–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Meek, V. L. (2003). Introduction. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher
education managerial revolution? (Higher Education Dynamics 3) (pp. 1–29). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Meek, V. L. (2003). Governance and management of Australian higher education: Enemies within and
without. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial
revolution? (Higher Education Dynamics 3) (pp. 179–202). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Meek, V. L (2003). Market coordination, research management and the future of higher education in the
post-industrial era, UNESCO Forum Occasional Paper Series, 5, 1–29.
Meek, V. L. & Davies, D. (2009). Policy dynamics in higher education and research: Concepts and
observations. In Meek, V. L., Teichler, U & Kearney, M-L. (Eds.), Higher education, research and
innovation: Changing dynamics. Report on the UNESCO forum on higher education, research and
knowledge 2001–2009 (pp. 41–84). Kassel: International Centre for Higher Education Research.
McCraw, T. K. (2007). Prophet of innovation. Joseph Schumpeter and creative destruction. Cambridge:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Näswall, K., Hellgren J. & Sverke, M. (Eds.). (2008). The individual in the changing working life.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why you don’t have to leave the corporation to become an
entrepreneur. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
Rehn, A. (2004). Pessimistiskt entreprenörskap [Pessimistic entrepreneurship] (PMP Working Paper
14). Stockholm: Pink Machine Papers. Retrieved from http://pdf.textfiles.com/acadecmis/
PinkMachine/nr14
Rehn, A. (2010). Farliga idéer: När det opassande tänkandet är din värdefullaste resurs [Dangerous
ideas: When inappropriate thinking is your most valuable resource]. Stockholm: Book House
Editions.
Reich, R. B. (2001). The future of success. South Africa: Random House.
Sandgren, A. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the university context. The Russian example in historical,
cultural and comparative perspective (MA thesis). Stockholm: Institute of International Education,
Stockholm University. Retrieved fromwww.interped.su.se
Sandgren, A. & Strömqvist, G. (2006). Human resources and the entrepreneurial university – The cases
of Finland, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Retrieved from www.euerek.info
Sandgren A. & Strömqvist, G. (2010). Motivation and incentives for university entrepreneurialism in
Eastern and Western Europe. A comparative analysis based on the EUEREK project. In M. A. Geo-
Jaja & S. Majhanovich (Eds.), Education, language, and economics: Growing national and global
dilemmas (pp. 181–194). Rotterdam: SENSE Publishers.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 24, 203–220.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the
capitalist process. New York: Macmillan.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). The theory of economic development. New York: Oxford University Press.

168
 MANAGERIALISM AND ENTREPRENEURIALISM IN UNIVERSITIES

Schleicher, A. (2006, March). Europe’s university challenge. OECD Observer. Retrieved from
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1889/
Schleicher, A. (2006). The economics of knowledge: Why education is key for Europe’s success. The
Lisbon Council Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/11/36278531.pdf
Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship. University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenhamn:
Edward Elgar.
Shattock, M. (2003). Managing successful universities. Naidenhead: SRHE & Open University Press.
Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial
university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Steyaert, C. & Hjorth, D. Eds (2006). Entrepreneurship as Social Change. Cheltenhamn: E Elgar.
Styhre, A. & Lind, F. (2010). The softening bureaucracy: Accommodating new research opportunities
in the entrepreneurial university. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 107–120.
Swedberg, R. (Ed). (2000). Entrepreneurship, the social science view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Törnqvist, G. (2009). Kreativitet i tid och rum. Processer, personer och platser [Creativity in time and
space. Processes, persons and places]. Stockholm: SNS förlag.
Wasser, H. (2001). The twenty-first century university: Some reservations. Higher Education Review,
33(3), 47–55.
Watson, J. D. (2001). Double helix. A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Weber, M. (1919). Science as a vocation ‘Wissenschaft als Beruf’, from Gesammlte Aufsaetze zur
Wissenschafsleher (Tubigen, 1922), pp. 524–55. Originally delivered as a speech at Munich
University, 1918. Published by Duncker & Humboldt, Munich. Retrieved from http://www.
wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/X/WeberScienceVocation.pdf

Aljona Sandgren
Ph.D. Candidate
Åbo Akademi University

169
 CARLA ROVERSELLI AND ANSELMO R. PAOLONE

10. THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

ACQUIRED BY RETURNEES FROM INDIVIDUAL
STUDENT EXCHANGES
European Key Competencies and the Italian School

INTRODUCTION1

To achieve the objectives that the European Council planned in Lisbon in 2000, “to
become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the
world” (Lisbon European Council, 2000), the school of the future is outlined by
EU official bodies, more and more, like a school that must provide and establish
new key competencies, rather than simply one that provides and ensures
knowledge. This objective is spreading vigorously in all member countries of the
Union because the conclusions of the Lisbon Council gave Europe a mandate to
develop a common approach to education that goes beyond the diversity of
national education systems: we are then going a bit everywhere in Europe toward a
school of competencies (Hingel, 2001). Well-known as they are, key competencies
have been defined by the European Recommendation of December 18,
2006(European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2006). They are:
communication in the mother tongue, communication in foreign languages,
mathematical competency and basic competencies in science and technology,
digital competency, learning to learn, social and civic competencies, a sense of
initiative and entrepreneurship, and cultural awareness and expression.
These competencies are deemed essential by the European Parliament and the
European Council for one’s active participation in social life and the processes of
development and innovation, and are termed “a combination of knowledge, skills
and attitudes appropriate to the context” which “everyone needs for personal
fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment”
(Ibid., p. 4).
The Italian school, which has implemented the EU legislation, provides for
measures aimed towards improving and disseminating (and evaluating) in
particular some key competencies – namely, those concerning the understanding
and use of mother tongue, reading, foreign languages and other languages,
mathematics and science (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2007). The Italian
school tends to take less account of all the other competencies, for a variety of

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 171–191.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

reasons: because they are difficult to assess and, partly because, despite what
Europe hopes for, the Italian school directs one’s attention more to subject content.
The Plan of action that Europe expects, requires a substantial effort to assess
efficiency and effectiveness of programmes put in place, aimed not only at
measurability, but also comparability, at the European level, of the work offered by
schools. In this regard, the Commission of the European Communities (2007) has
offered a framework of indicators and benchmarks to monitor progress towards the
Lisbon objectives in education and training, and then to measure and compare all
the competencies. The European strategy of competencies seeks to create a school
that aims at maximum efficiency, and makes sure to weld together education,
vocational training, employment and the wealth of a nation. This strategy,
however, also seems to reveal another purpose, “the Unionisation” (Nóvoa &
deJong-Lambert, 2003) that is not only geared to create the conditions for which
the European Union acts as a ‘great governor’ who organises or influences national
policies, but also ensures that the direction of the developments is the same.
Despite this, however, individual member countries maintain their own
physiognomy, while acknowledging a number of common rules, as evidenced, for
example, by the case of Italy.
In this chapter, we wish to focus on a microsector, namely the assessment of the
competencies acquired by a student studying abroad long-term. The overall
experience of a long period of study abroad is difficult to assess because one
should take into account a variety of competencies acquired by students, which are
of both a disciplinary and non-disciplinary nature (see Part Two of this
contribution). The overall assessment of this experience, therefore, would require
that the Italian school implement much more than the European Recommendations
on the assessment of competency, but this, in reality, is not being done and it is
difficult to do for a variety of reasons.
The consideration of this segment of the life of the school therefore exposes the
way in which Italy’s strategy on key competencies takes shape as a result of
particular national political choices. The difficulties encountered by the Italian
school in assessing a student who has spent a year studying abroad, highlight on
the one hand, the limitations of the system, but on the other, warn against over-
standardisation, and ultimately neutralise the richness and versatility of the
experience gained from these students (see Part Two).
In the first part of the contribution, Roverselli will consider the progress made
by Europe in promoting the strategy of competencies and the way in which Italy
has implemented the rules. In the second part, Paolone will show the versatility of
competencies acquired by students after a year of them studying abroad, and the
need for, and at the same time, the difficulty of evaluating them.

PART ONE

Key Competencies at the European Level

As is well-known, Europe has come to talk about key competencies after a long
journey that began, one can say, at the international level in 1993, with the World

172
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

Health Organization’s (1993) “Life Skills Education for Children and Adolescents
in Schools” and at the European level, with the Delors White Paper, “Growth,
Competitiveness and Employment” (Commission of the European Communities,
1993). In 1997, the OECD launched the PISA project (Programme for International
Student Assessment), which every three years, submits a representative sample of
15-year-old students of each participating country to a survey on the mastery of
basic knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics and science. In this project the
competencies are linked to specific subject areas and are therefore distinct from the
more complex transversal competencies on which, instead, the OECD focused
between 1997 and 2003 with the DeSeCo project (Definition and Selection of
Competencies) (Rychen & Salganik, 2003). DeSeCo introduced the concept of key
competency that leaves out any direct reference to discipline and school, although
it remains the duty of schools and educational institutions to encourage their
development with a view to lifelong learning more attuned to the needs of adult
life than the ‘developmental age’.
The European Council in Lisbon in 2000, acknowledging the work undertaken
by the OECD, has set its education policy on the promotion of new basic skills,
with primarily economic and social reasons and aims. In order to implement the
Lisbon strategy, working groups and monitoring phases were soon implemented.
In 2003, the Interim Report of the Council and the European Commission
(Commission of the European Communities, 2003) on the implementation of the
strategy, called for the establishment of a European framework, based on national
frameworks, to serve as a common reference for the recognition of qualifications
and skills. At the same time, the report also announced news of the forthcoming
adoption of the Europass; the European framework for the transparency of
qualifications and skills. The qualifications were then matched to competencies:
while qualifications are formal certifications, competencies are dynamic data that,
somehow or other, certify without stiffening the possessed qualifications and
instead making them intelligible and upgradable. All of this, with the awareness
that even the competencies acquired in informal and non-formal contexts, should
be recognised.
On December 18, 2006 the European Parliament and Council adopted the
Recommendation “on key competencies for lifelong learning”; this is an important
document which is the culmination of work done since the Lisbon European
Council in 2000, and also serves as a starting point for subsequent designs and
applications of the framework in different national systems. The key competencies
identified by this Recommendation indicate the importance of linking educational
activities in school with subsequent learning, with experiences from outside
schools, within the world of work and occupations, with an open project for
personal and professional life. The key competencies arise from the belief that
school is passing on forms of knowledge that are no longer adapted to the needs of
the majority of people. Consequently, what is needed is not an increase in school
time, contents and disciplines; what is important is to realise what one can do with
what one knows (Pellerey, 2010b, p. 396).
According to Cicatelli (2009), the concept of education that comes from the
European Recommendation of 2006 responds to the needs of social and productive

173
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

integration rather than autonomous human development objectives, as it is argued

in the text that education has “a dual role, social and economic” (European
Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2006, p. 4). The school thus appears
to be subservient to the market, however, the strategy of competencies leads to a
relapse on pedagogical models and teaching that goes beyond the intentions of
European lawmakers, as it shifts the focus from the quantity of knowledge gained
to the quality of their assimilation and processing (Cicatelli, 2009, pp. 81–108). It
also seems positive that the eight key competencies are not arranged hierarchically
and that they are all equally important and interrelated in some way, leaving the
door open for possible additions.
Yet, the competencies approach promoted by the European Union was harshly
criticised by some scholars as an abandonment of knowledge and a subservience to
the logic of the market. Marcel Crahay highlighted the dangers, uncertainties and
incompleteness of the competencies logic. This strategy, which focuses on the
mobilisation of cognitive resources of a subject, would lead to the idolisation of
flexibility at the expense of a standardisation of procedures, or rather the ability to
handle ordinary situations of professional life. Also, it would lead to the reduction
of knowledge to mere intellectual ornaments. For this, Crahay (2006, 2010)
expressed a hope for the restoration of the disciplines, accompanied by a reflection
on the learning process and the development of teaching devices. Another criticism
comes from Boutin and Julien that, considerations about “the obsession of
competencies” in the contemporary educational discourse, express the view of
many who hold that the hegemony of the educational movement is based on
competencies that respond to a strong political movement with the main objective
being the preparation of students to work in a competitive society, the axis of
which is economic performance (2000, p. 3). This new “single educational
thought” threatens to subject teaching to the needs of a capitalist economy in crisis.
Behind the competencies approach, it is said there hides economic objectives
related to the labour market. The competencies approach is therefore an
abandonment of knowledge (Hirtt, 2009). Within this trend one may also consider
the criticisms made by Bernard Rey (1996) regarding transversal competencies.
A different critique to the post-Lisbon competencies strategy is formulated by
Marcella Milana (2008). This scholar highlights the oversimplification of the social
problems that Europe intends to address, as ‘the great European governor’
supposes to solve everything with education, being under the illusion that one
could attain a perfect balance of skills and competencies between those within the
education system and those recognised by the labour market, as well as between
the levels of skills and expertise possessed by an individual and the job she or he
can get. Empirical studies show that these equilibria are not there, so ‘the great
European governor’ could even have unintended effects on social welfare. Despite
all these criticisms, in my opinion, one should keep in mind the importance of
developing multiple competencies that are promoted at the European level,
including the educational processes of a person, and in school organisation.
However, parallel to the competencies strategy, in Europe the definition of the
European Qualification Framework – EQF – has been developing, which was
adopted by the European Parliament and Council with the Recommendation of

174
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

April 23, 2008. (European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2008).
This Recommendation aims to establish “a common reference framework which
should serve as a translation device between different qualifications systems and
their levels, whether for general and higher education, or for vocational education
and training” (Ibid., p. 2). It also aims to build “bridges between formal, non
formal and informal learning, leading also to the validation of learning outcomes
acquired through experience” (Ibid.). In this sense, this Recommendation
contributes “to modernising education and training systems and the
interrelationship of education, training and employment” (Ibid.). In the glossary
attached to this Recommendation appears a comprehensive definition of
competency that has become a point of reference for the subsequent theoretical
work and legislation, especially in Italy. According to this definition, competency
is “the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or
methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and
personal development. In the context of the European Qualifications Framework,
competency is described in terms of responsibility and autonomy” (Ibid., p. 4).
But it seems almost obvious to note that the European Qualifications
Framework cannot be regarded as a politically neutral tool (Cort, 2010). The
European Commission has been monitoring for some years now the
implementation of the Lisbon working programme on education and training, and
then the key competencies. The “2010 Joint Report of the Council and the
European Commission” (European Council & European Commission, 2010)
identified a number of serious problems concerning the full implementation of the
framework of key competencies and it is argued that other interventions are still
needed at the European and national levels.
In fact, to implement the key competencies in accordance with the European
Commission, Italy must make additional reforms to the school curriculum and
assessment systems. The education and training systems – including universities –
should become more open and in-line with the needs of the labour market and
society more generally. Much more needs to be done in particular for the practical
application of transversal key competencies: for example, caring more about the
critical spirit in the use of new media and new technologies; promoting throughout
the school a learning ethos; going beyond the knowledge component when seeking
to impart social and civic competencies, a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship
and cultural awareness. To implement these improvements is crucial to the quality
of teaching and school leadership. Teachers and school leaders should be prepared
for these changes, because more innovative approaches to teaching and learning
are required, including new teaching methods and assessments that would be
consistent with the approach based on competencies. This would therefore require
a continuing professional development of all teachers (pre-service and in-service),
that is teachers, trainers and school leaders; to give them the pedagogical
competencies, and not only the necessary assumption of new roles that this
approach entails.
To achieve these objectives, the European Commission considers the most
effective means to be lifelong learning and mobility: these approaches have already
been tested and supported for years, as happened with the Community Action

175
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

Programme in Lifelong Learning (LLP). Its overall objective has been to

contribute, through lifelong learning, to the development of the European
Community as an advanced knowledge society, and this comes about through the
promotion of trade, co-operation and mobility between education and training
systems within the European Community so that they become a worldwide
benchmark for quality.
These policies are then to be reflected in individual member states; as for Italy,
see also, by way of example and confirmation of the trend, the latest initiatives
undertaken by the General Directorate for International Affairs of the Ministry of
Education, which aims to promote the mobility of the teaching staff (Ministero
dell’Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca, 2010). Therefore it is clear that
school reform in terms of an adaptation to European strategies is not only
connected with the training of teachers and their internationalisation of these aims,
which is what the European Union hopes for and funds, but that it also depends
upon the application of these strategies, which are not easily done, at least in our
national school system.
However, similar difficulties are experienced in other European countries, as
shown in recent comparative research on 30 EU countries (Unità Italiana di
Eurydice, 2009). It must also be noted that numerous efforts are being made to
remove those difficulties with the support of a strong European orientation in this
direction.
The other point that the “2010 Joint progress Report” stresses in various ways is
the acquisition (and evaluation) of transversal key competencies. Through learning,
the learner should not only acquire knowledge but also corresponding skills and
attitudes. The evaluation therefore needs to consider not only knowledge and
memory but also skills and attitudes, which is certainly very complex. In this
regard, the European Commission suggests using complementary methods such as
peer review, knowledge portfolios, evaluation of individual and/or school learning
plans, and project evaluation. The acquisition of transversal key competencies and
communication in foreign languages are increasingly important for the European
Commission, both to encourage greater creativity and innovation and to succeed in
the workplace and in society in general (European Council & European
Commission, 2010).
Certainly, in a long-term study abroad experience, one can acquire not only
communication skills in foreign languages but also transversal competencies: what
is lacking in Italy, however, is the overall assessment of this experience, which is
restricted, by the most recent rules on the matter (i.e. the “Gelmini Reform”). This
recent regulation however, is grafted on a previous lack of clarity regarding this
need (Paolone, 2010).

THE STRATEGY FOR COMPETENCIES IN ITALY

In Italy the rhetoric of competencies, for some time now, has become a slogan,
sometimes at the expense of an in-depth reflection on the concept itself (Cambi,
2004, pp. 23–35). In the Italian educational and training policies the word
“competency” comes in the ‘90s. However, the use of this term, as well as the

176
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

expression “certification of competency” was introduced, according Pellerey,

without proper operational and semantic equipment. The term competency in the
Italian context is not always used with the same meaning: there is considerable
diversity of approaches from which the term derives a significant ambiguity in
meaning, producing at least three different versions (Moscato, 2007; Pellerey,
2010b, p. 397).
The first version is of a behaviourist kind: one finds this in labour sociology
where the person responsible would be trained, or repeatedly exposed to
conditioning stimulus that lend to the acquiring of certain measurable and
observable behaviours, considered valid for the solution of particular problems. In
this case, competency and ability overlap. A second version is of a cognitive-
analytic kind, so that the competencies would be a predetermined set of rational,
operational, motivational, emotional, relational and expressive characteristics,
internal to the subject, which one is to hold irrespective of the specific task at hand,
and irrespective of the characteristics of the concrete situation in which one is
situated. In this sense, I prefer to speak of meta-competencies or general
competencies, which are valid, then, in all circumstances (Pellerey, 2010a).
According to the third version, competency would be one’s ability to mobilise all
resources at one’s disposal, combining them in an original and effective way in a
given context, to provide original answers which have the potential to foster
innovation (Le Boterf, 2008). In other words, competencies should manifest every
time, with originality and adaptation, only in concrete situations related to real
settings that also require a particular form of ‘governance’ which in turn
determines a “learner area” (Le Boterf, 2007). According to Bertagna (2004)
however, this emphasises the subjective dimension of competency, as
competencies are personal and somehow unique, just as each person is unique.
The Italian elaboration of its strategy for competencies distances itself from the
European strategy. The latter stems from economic needs and focuses on
enhancing personal employability and collective productivity. The former, instead,
is developing mainly in schools and is more attentive to learning processes and
educational goals. Italy, in its attempt to recover the educational and school
dimension of competencies, identifies disciplines and disciplinary competencies as
a tool that holds together knowledge and competencies, and argues that only
disciplinary competencies, and not the transversal ones, are taught within schools,
which is still structured around disciplines. Transversal competencies are therefore,
in drawing-up the strategy for competencies within the Italian school, the overall
result of the competent person’s passage through school (Cicatelli, 2009).
This is clear even in the latest secondary school reform, launched by the
Minister Maria Stella Gelmini in March, 2010, implemented in the 2010–2011
school year. This reform has made an effort to align curriculum and qualifications
to European Qualification Framework (EQF) learning outcomes, although Italy has
not yet implemented, as required by Europe, a national framework for
qualifications and certifications based on the EQF model (Nardiello, 2010). In
particular, this Reform has assumed the EQF as a reference point for the renewal of
vocational and technical schools, as indicated by the guidelines; it took less
account of the Liceo, (Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca &

177
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, 2010; MIUR, 2010a; MIUR, 2010b)

which, as in the model developed by Gentile, is still considered the place of
‘disinterested culture’, i.e. culture, by its own sake, with no connections to the
world of work and occupations, considering disciplinary learning as a kind of
‘gymnasium’ for the mind and intelligence, meant to make one fit for taking-up to
any branch of university studies (Ferratini, 2009). This Reform, compared to the
previous Moratti Reform, appears to be more concerned with learning outcomes
and transition to employment, as evidenced by its Educational Profile (MIUR,
2010c), though it is basically a rationalisation of the existing school system
(Malizia & Nanni, 2010).
According to some scholars, the system proposed by the ‘new’ regulations is not
innovative (Cicatelli, 2010), and confirms the order that has always been in force
in the Italian school: continuity and tradition with regards to the Liceo, and
endorsement of the proposals by the previous government with regards to technical
and vocational schools (Niceforo, 2010). In the regulations there seems to be a
revival of traditional hierarchies and separations between Licei and technical
schools, between the latter and vocational schools, and finally between vocational
schools and vocational training (Malizia & Nanni, 2010). On the other hand, in the
opinion of Paolo Ferratini, who was part of the technical group that drafted the
National Guidelines for the Licei, “the new structure of the school system is
founded on a modernist traditional ideology (the school of the old days, plus
internet, English, and business)” (2009, p. 726). It is a throwback to the past that
intends to rediscover strongly characterised and distinct paths, clearing the forest
of experimentations of all shapes and sizes. These are the intentions of the reform,
as it emerges from the words of Minister Gelmini, quoted by Ferratini:
“Authoritativeness, authority, hierarchy, teaching, study, effort, merit. These are
the keywords we want to rebuild, dismantling the ideological construction of
empty pedagogy that since 1968, as a virus, has infected the Italian school” (2009,
p. 725)
According to Malizia and Nanni (2010), within the National Guidelines for the
Licei and related regulations (in comparison to the Moratti Reform) there is a shift
in attention from the student’s profile to the profile of the Liceo; that is, there is a
transition from an education focused on the making of the overall person to a more
functional education that is concerned with learning outcomes. Through the reform
of the Liceo, the Gelmini ministry wants to return to a nostalgic notion of the
soundness of fundamental knowledge and to a general approach. Therefore the
reform in effect protects the epistemic status of the individual subject areas,
referring infrequently and with great prudence to the competencies in order to
avoid their abstract definitions, which could challenge the importance of the
content areas.
In fact, the “National Guidelines” insist on ambiguously evaluating the
metacognitive competencies, that is, those that are relational and attitudinal, but
rather views them as an ‘indirect results’ of the whole educational process.2 This
follows as a consequence of the fact that the “National Guidelines” place emphasis
on the disciplinary competencies rather than on the abstract transversal
competencies that could make learning content irrelevant. In support of this

178
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

interpretation that favours the disciplinary competencies, the “National Guidelines”

cited a definition of competency found in the EQF, offering, in my opinion, a
partial reading of the term.3

Assessment of Competencies Acquired by a Student Who Has Completed a Period

of Long-Term Study Abroad
The privileging of disciplinary competencies in the Italian school certainly makes
the assessment of a student who has completed a year of study abroad more
difficult. In this case it is required to assess not only disciplinary competencies
acquired by students, but also the added value of a student’s individual experience
of cross-cultural exchange, covering aspects of behaviour and skills that are not
measurable with traditional tools and yet contribute in a fundamental way to the
formation of one’s personality.
Thus, a student’s return to the home school after one year of study abroad is a
crucial time both for the school as well as the student (Bizzarri, De Marchis &
Ruffino, 1999; Grossi & Serra, 2002). The returnee, first, upon her or his return,
should become aware of the many skills acquired abroad, since upon a return to
Italy, will be confronted with a school that is only now beginning to integrate the
concept of competency into the curriculum. The school, for its part, is obliged to
deal with an experience that, to some degree, it consider anomalous. It is assumed
that the returnee, among the various competencies acquired abroad, has learned to
move with ease between different cultural codes, beginning to acquire a personal
code of reworking; in other words, it is assumed (Grove & Hansel, 1986; Hammer,
2005) that the returnee has acquired, together with other competencies, a sort of
meta-competency – the intercultural one. Also, the returnee will have acquired
disciplinary competencies to an extent different from those offered by the home
school. And finally, the returning individual will have surely learned, to varying
degrees, some transversal competencies: a new method of study, additional
computer skills that will allow one to speak with other languages (such as music,
graphics, etc.), the ability to relate to others with both a critical attitude and cultural
relativism, a willingness to co-operate in group work and group activities, and a
recognition of one’s own responsibilities towards people and the situations that one
encounters (Grossi & Serra, 2002, p. 145). The student will have acquired social
and civic competencies, a spirit of initiative and entrepreneurship, cultural
awareness and expression, to varying degrees. The end-result of the experience of
studying abroad, if properly conducted, can therefore be considered as a form of
‘empowerment’4 for the returnee.
The Italian school, however, which is also heading towards a change in the
school’s competencies, cannot yet fully take into account the whole set of
competencies acquired abroad by a returnee. International studies on returnees
point-out that the Italian context presents special difficulties for reintegration. In
fact, the Italian school primarily evaluates returnees in terms of disciplinary
competencies acquired abroad, often determining that students are behind or
lacking in terms of the disciplinary competencies typical of Italian school

179
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

curriculum; these are filled with rules that vary from institution to institution.
Currently there are many difficulties in recognising all of the transversal
competencies acquired abroad, not only because the Italian school is ill-equipped
in assessing them, but also because our education system, as we have seen, tends to
value its own cultural traditions more highly, illustrating that the school is still
bound to its role as a defender of national identity.
As shown by recent research (Palomba, Paolone, Roverselli, Niceforo & Cappa,
2010), differences in the assessment of competencies acquired abroad are linked to
what may be called the ‘culture’ of an institute. In fact, the attitude of teachers in
evaluating/re-inserting a returnee is mostly influenced by the ‘culture’ of the
school in which they operate, which constitutes, in some sense, a ‘system’ within
which ‘a general culture relevant to cultural exchanges is founded’, which
probably has a greater impact, more than any other factor, on the attitude of the
teachers themselves. We must say that, on the other hand, where the school culture
consciously intersects with the new international concept of transversal
competencies, support to teachers in anticipation of a better consideration and
assessment of learning outcomes for students returning from abroad is provided.
On the other hand, as Pellerey recalled, “the actual definition of various skills and
their level is linked more or less to the cultural context in which educational
practice and teaching are carried on. Both internal and external evaluations are
connected with the cultural and practical context in which they operate” (2010c,
p. 629).
However, autonomy is not anarchy, and the need for national framework
legislation that gives more precise guidance for teachers in assessing this particular
experience comes out clearly from interviews conducted in the research cited
above, especially with the heads of institutes, which constitute the fulcrum of that
‘school-system’ to which we have referred (Paolone, 2010). Diversification in the
assessment of a returnee’s experience, thus also refers to administrative
decentralisation and school autonomy. “The decentralized land management –
which now concerns Italy, also comes from a centralized tradition – and the
growing autonomy of schools, creates a diverse picture, where the local context
and the ‘school culture’ become more important. On the other hand, schools,
Regions and State, are called to confront and compete in an ever-widening
scenario, which basically covers the entire international framework” (Palomba,
2010, p. 8).
The assessment of a returnee’s competencies highlights, therefore, a crucial
moment in which local and global powers are intertwining without being confused.
In the case of key competencies, “Europe, especially in a sensitive area such as
education systems which are perceived as being strongly related to national
identity, has remained in a subsidiary with respect to Nation States, without
wanting to surmount their sovereignty. So in this sector its role of stimulus – and
also of conditioning, through appropriate financial arrangements – cannot be
confused with an immediate ruling function, which concerns only well defined
areas” (Ibid., p. 7).
Italy, meanwhile, has certainly welcomed the discourse of competencies;
however, putting them in a debate that illuminates advantages and limitations has

180
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

weakened them in part, through an interpretation that is the result of specific

national political choices. Consequently, the versatility of competencies acquired
in a year of study abroad is not yet fully appreciated in the national school system.

PART TWO

Problems in the Assessment of Returnees’ Competencies

In the first part of this chapter, we have seen how Europe is asking its member
countries to introduce, inter alia, the assessment of competencies in their formative
systems. In Italy, for the time being, the only form of competency assessment
implemented at the level of state exams is the INVALSI test which takes place
during the final examinations of junior high school. The implementation of EU
solicitations on competencies is made difficult by the problems that often exist
when introducing new elements imported from other formative systems (in this
case, the EU model), and is also made difficult by the political approach of the
ruling Italian government, which is reviving some of the traditions of the national
formative system, such as the tendency to assess knowledge rather than
competencies.
Nevertheless, for some time now, there has been a field in which Italian teachers
have the necessity to try assessing competencies: international, individual student
exchanges. As it was shown through empirical research,5 for many Italian teachers,
dealing with such assessments represent their first actual encounter with the
problem of competency assessment – a problem that teachers have tried to solve in
various and creative ways, in lieu of the obstacle of an inadequate Italian
legislation which asks them to assess returnees’ competencies, but is unclear on
how this should be done. In fact, students come home from foreign countries
having learned different things from what is normally taught in the Italian school
system. Often, they have lived and learned in schools oriented towards problem-
solving, rather than disciplinary abstract knowledge (as is the case, traditionally, in
the Italian school system). But they have also acquired more articulated
competencies which are difficult to define, like those that can be subsumed under
the title of ‘transversal competencies’. As we shall see in the following pages,
these more complex competencies are one of the main pedagogical added values of
individual, long-term student exchanges. Therefore, a satisfactory and complete
assessment of experiences in the foreign countries should contemplate the aspect of
competencies, also of those which are more difficult to define.
In this part of the chapter, also making use of the results of an empirical study,
the question is if these categories provided by the EU – if received correctly by the
Italian system – could help Italian teachers in making things clearer in the
problematic plexus: to appraise the competencies of various kinds, acquired by
returnees6 (Paolone 2010, pp. 21–23) by providing some ‘official’ categories that
can widen the horizons of the Italian school institution. This amplification of
horizons of the institution is already taking place at an informal level, as seen in
the aforementioned empirical study. In large part, this is due to the influence of
some international models such as assessment systems (PISA, TIMMS, etc.), but

181
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

limitedly to some forms of competency which are more easily understandable

within the Italian school system (e.g.: “transversal” competencies seem not to be
part of this process.)
As the EU declaration on key competencies contemplates a wide range of
transversal competencies, such as “communication in foreign languages […]
learning to learn, social and civic competencies, a sense of initiative and
entrepreneurship, and cultural awareness and expression” (European Parliament &
Council of the European Union, 2006, p. 4), could its implementation in Italy help
teachers frame these aspects of returnees’ acquisitions from abroad, which are
usually not assessed by the Italian school system?

Empirical Research Findings

In fact, these competencies, resulting from a returnee’s overall experience abroad,
constitute one of the pillars of the pedagogy of some independent organisations in
charge of long-term individual exchanges. In educational terms, they are
considered as one of the main added values in returnees’ experience (Hammer,
2005; Grove & Hansel 1986). In this sense, could the categories defined by the EU
supply Italian teachers with a grid through which one could understand the ampler
set of various and complex competencies acquired by returnees? This is a large
question, which cannot be completely answered in this chapter, for in Italy, as
Roverselli stated in “Part One”, the controversial implementation of the European
Recommendations of 2006 and 2008 is only just beginning. What we will do here
is pose some premises, which could be useful for future studies in empirically
researching the effects. Some of the proposed premises derive, in fact, from the
findings of the empirical research and will be discussed in the following pages.
Firstly, let’s try to better define what are returnees’ acquisitions that trouble
teachers the most, in terms of assessment and reinsertion of students in their
schools of origin. The empirical research has shown (the case studies) that when
teachers have to assess returnees, there is one aspect that causes them most
concern. It is, of course to frame into the existing assessment schemes of the Italian
school system not only the “school” competencies, which are usually not assessed
in Italy, but especially the less “scholarly” aspects, tied to returnees’ general
human experiences (Paolone 2010, pp. 38–44), which constitute, as already
mentioned, one of the pillars of the individual exchanges’ pedagogy.
In fact, some of the most important independent organisations in charge of long-
term individual student exchanges follow a pedagogical tradition which aims at
creating a cultural rupture in pupils’ experience. By overcoming the acculturative
shock, consequent of one’s attendance in a different school in a different country,
an exchange student is expected to learn how to cope with a different culture at
many levels: in the classroom but also in most aspects of everyday life. When
pupils come back home, they experience acculturative shock once more, in
adjusting again to their original culture and school. The condition of ‘liminality’
(Paolone, 2006; Turner, 1974, 1982) that an exchange student experiences under
these circumstances is believed to be the spring of a multi-lateral personal growth.

182
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

As already mentioned, this pedagogical vision seems to clash with some of the
traditional aims of the Italian school system, which was born under the auspices of
national unification (Morandini, 2001; Palomba, 2009; Talamo, 1960), which until
recently, has been a centralised one. The empirical study showed that in Italy this
“conservative” perspective, according to which the school seems to be mainly a
national and monocultural institution, is part of the mentality of some teachers,
even if it is not completely clear whether they stick to it for “nationalistic” or rather
for “corporatist” reasons (Paolone, 2010, pp. 34–35).
Let us try to better analyse this clash, which is between: a) the “conservative”
mentality of the system and of some teachers in relation to student exchanges and
their uneasiness about them; and b) what we shall call here the “pedagogy of
acculturative shock”. These two aspects will be discussed more in detail in the
following pages.
With respect to the first element of this conflict, at the local level, observable by
the ethnographer, the negative reactions of the studied teachers linked to this clash,
seem to be at least twofold. On the one hand, there is a preoccupation for the time
the returnee has “wasted” in terms of what the individual has missed by not
studying the Italian curriculum (e.g. in the perspective of the final state exams).
This preoccupation is particularly strong in staff members teaching subjects which
are little-taught in foreign schools (e.g. Ancient Greek, Latin, Philosophy, etc.).
Many staff members believe that the choice of a foreign school with a curriculum
similar to that of the school of origin could ease such problems (pp. 63–73). On the
other hand, some staff members seem to be worried by the transformed mentality
of returnees. In fact, some returnees experience actual problems of reinsertion not
only in terms of school performance, but also in terms of peer group relationships.
All this contributes to the scepticism of some staff members including, in some
cases, school principals, who generally declare being in favour of exchanges (Ibid.,
p. 55).
However, when these beliefs and scepticisms were then studied more in-depth,
it emerged that what is actually underlining them, more than facts, is a form of
ideological uneasiness: teachers are puzzled, inter alia, by the overall growth of
the returnees because they cannot frame it into the (inadequate) formal schemes
of the Italian school system, especially in terms of their assessment. Many aspects
of this growth, at least those which are meaningful for the school, are in fact
articulated competencies and they thus differ from what the Italian school is
traditionally better equipped to assess: disciplinary knowledge. Some of these
competencies, those that could be subsumed under the title of ‘intercultural
competencies’ even go beyond all that in Italy is traditionally taught and assessed
in school, and are at the borders of informal education. Therefore, the plexus which
was mentioned before, consists in the fact that teachers have to assess students’
acquisitions which are at the crossroads between different cultures (the Italian and
the foreign) and between formal and informal education (Palomba & Paolone,
2011). Unaided by the system and its inadequate rules, Italian teachers seem to be
unable to interpret this plexus which makes some of them uneasy towards student
exchanges.

183
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

About the second element of the conflict, which we shall call here the “pedagogy
of acculturative shock” (and which is one of the sources of teachers’ uneasiness),
we have already noticed that it is one of the bases of the pedagogical vision of the
independent organisations which are in charge of long-term student exchanges in
Italy. We have seen above that, according to the empirical research, some Italian
teachers feel that this acculturative shock produces in returnees changes that can
create problems and that are anyhow very difficult to assess. Let’s therefore
examine what are, more in detail, the effects of acculturative shock on long-term
exchange students.

Acculturative Shock and Personal Change

When they go abroad for a long-term individual exchange period, students enter a
foreign culture, which differs from the cultural communication that they have
known at home. What students used to consider familiar or assumed, suddenly
becomes less obvious. When strangers (such as exchange students) undergo
acculturation, they are exposed to cultural patterns established in the host society
which are also considered as the local standard. It is the dominant elements of the
host society which exert on foreigners the strongest pressure to conform. In multi-
cultural societies this means that a newcomer is especially conditioned by the main
culture (e.g. in the US, one is mainly conditioned by the Anglo-Saxon culture, even
if the Hispanic culture or other cultures could play a role). Foreigners are re-
enculturated into a host society. But, while their childhood enculturation was lived
as ‘natural’ and ‘smooth’, the communication patterns and the cultural identity that
have become a part of their personality, will be obstacles on the way of their
second-time enculturation. Firstly because, as acculturation occurs, strangers will
have to lose some of their original cultural patterns. Their communication system
gradually undergoes an adaptive transformation, in this interplay of acculturation
and deculturation. In the end, the transformation of strangers becomes visible, as
some of the old cultural patterns are replaced by the new ones.7 Human systems
tend to preserve many variables constant in their internal structure, so as to
maintain a coherent whole. Members of a culture experience a state of stress when
they receive messages that disrupt their existing cultural order. This is the case of
strangers experiencing acculturation and deculturation and -in the cultural world
constituted by the host society- they may miss the ‘mutual understanding’ between
subjects. In every cultural situation, the natives see not only roles and identities,
but also shared realities: the intersubjective structure of consciousness. When they
are in their original environment, people respond to daily routine without
questioning. But when they are in a stranger environment, every situation is new
and could be a crisis experience (Herlz, 1988). When the demands of the host
environment are perceived by strangers as incompatible with their capacities to
meet those demands, strangers must adjust and readjust in order to cope with the
host society. An inability to meet the basic human need of having a validation of
one’s place in a given environment, can lead to symptoms of emotional stress.
Foreigners react to restore or maintain their inner stability and balance when

184
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

experiencing internal disequilibrium or stress. They temporarily try to protect

themselves from stressful conditions, by enacting an array of psychological tactics.
When foreigners stay in the host society, the quality of their integration depends on
the quality of communication they can establish with members of the local culture.
Solving the communication problem is the precondition for being accepted by the
host environment. Going through several emotional crises is the price to pay in
order to acquire the necessary communication skills. Through active
communication in the host society, foreigners must accept conflicts between their
original cultural patterns and the host cultural patterns. In this process, stress is a
constitutive element of the stress-adaptation cycle. The student’s evolution towards
new dimensions of experience, may produce forms of temporary personality
breakdown. In such a context, stress can be seen as the resistance of the human
mind against its own cultural transformation. The mental organisation of foreigners
therefore changes as they continue to adapt to the host environment.
The capacity of gaining a new vantage point on the world, is one of the
consequences of the stress-adaptation cycle, because acculturative stress should
also be considered as a force in growth and creativity for the individual. The stress
of coping with new cultural elements prepares the exchange student to further
cultural adaptation. Of course, the success of individuals in their attempts to cope
with stress, is unequal. Some may strongly resist change, and thus, growth. Some
may lack the stamina to cope with stress experiences. In social situations,
individuals have different abilities or motivation to cope with problems, and
different styles in using emotional defences. The extent of change within an
individual depends on several factors, which include: an individual’s capacity to
deal with the stimulus situation, including the influence of past experiences, innate
abilities and personal skills; the influence of society’s acceptable modes of
behaviour and society’s preparation of the individual in coping with problems and,
above all, the stimulus situation, which includes the importance of the situation to
the individual and the resulting motivation.
Migration from one society to another is a stressful experience involving major
changes in the life order of an individual. In fact, switching from one environment
to another can be seen as a crisis situation and the transition stress can influence
coping patterns and cause adaptation problems (Herlz 1988). Living in a
new country can cause feelings of helplessness, a loss of control, a lack of self-
confidence (Torbiorn, 1982). Furthermore, conflicting values between the original
and the host society can lead to communication problems, to the experience of
prejudice and discrimination as stressors, and to confusion. Constant demands for
change at the individual level, causing the loss of what is familiar or predictable,
can create a sense of isolation.
In the interplay of acculturation-deculturation, foreigners experience stress
caused by the differences between their internal order and the conditions of the
host environment. Experiences of stressful life events among immigrants have
been closely associated with the process of acculturation (Padilla, Wagatsuma &
Lindholm, 1985). Acculturation introduces potential sources of conflict and stress
among immigrants, often including values and role conflicts between the native
and host societies (Torbiorn, 1982). The absence of instrumental skills (such as the

185
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

knowledge of the host country’s language) keeps the unfamiliar world from
becoming controllable. This lowers self-esteem and can cause symptomatic
behaviour.
Due to these acculturation strains, exchange students are a group who have
more psychological problems than their peers (Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1994).
Exchange students are likely to suffer more problems than ordinary students. The
psychological problems of exchange students seem to be tied to a wide array of
reasons; among them we find problems related to social adjustment and culture
shock, and language barriers (Rubin, 1993). Also, exchange students’
psychological problems have been studied, even if the research is sporadic, at
times inconsistent, and isolated; however, some of these psychological problems
have been described without robust empirical evidence (Sandhu & Asrabadi,
1994). In earlier studies, some have identified homesickness, loneliness and
personal depression as major problems. Hull (1978), and Dillard and Chisolm
(1983) talked about loneliness, perceived alienation, frustration, fear, stress and
pessimism.
When students come home, after having endured, more or less successfully,
such a tremendous effort of adaptation, they face some of the same problems in
reverse – plus, there is a new element: they are now observing their native society
from a new vantage point. They first exited it, in order to become integrated in the
host society where they have spent their exchange period. They have lost part of
their original mentality and culture through deculturation, and have acquired a new
mentality and culture through acculturation. Now that they have returned, they
look onto and into their society of provenance (and sometimes are looked back at)
with a ‘new look’ (Paolone, 2006). De facto, they become ‘liminals’, as they feel
unfamiliar and even uncomfortable with their “home culture”, and with the school
they have left one year prior (Ward, Bochner & Furnham, 2001, pp. 142–165).
Their liminality is also the result of the current impossibility of framing and
assessing their experience in terms of the Italian legislation. In fact, this is the
institutional side of their liminality (Palomba & Paolone, Forthcoming). From such
a complex condition comes the opportunity for personal growth, as well as a
critical, creative regard on their home country, that could contribute to the renewal
of aspects of their lives and, if the assessment/institutional problem is solved, of
the Italian school and society. In that case, their enriching experience could be
measured and its educational results could somehow become part of the Italian
curriculum.
In this sense, as we have mentioned, a more articulate implementation of the
European Recommendations on the assessment of transversal competencies
(which, as Roverselli noticed in the Part One of this chapter, is not in the agenda of
the ruling Italian government) could widen the potential of the Italian school and
help integrate returnees’ wider experience into the system. But –by somehow
“normalising” the “second culture shock” which returnees experience when
coming back home- it could also partially neutralise the potential of returnees’
acquisitions in terms of liminality and “cultural shock” (considered here as factors
of change and growth) (Palomba & Paolone, Forthcoming).

186
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

NOTES
1
Both authors have collaborated in the planning of the contribution. In particular, Carla Roverselli is
the author of Part One and Anselmo R. Paolone is the author of Part Two.
2
“Va da sé, naturalmente, che competenze di natura metacognitiva (imparare ad apprendere),
relazionale (sapere lavorare in gruppo) o attitudinale (autonomia e creatività) non sono certo escluse
dal processo, ma ne costituiscono un esito indiretto, il cui conseguimento dipende dalla qualità del
processo stesso attuato nelle istituzioni scolastiche. Tale scelta è stata recentemente avvalorata dalla
scheda per la certificazione dell’assolvimento dell’obbligo (Decreto Ministeriale n.9, 27 gennaio
2010), in cui si chiede di esprimere una valutazione rispetto al livello raggiunto in 16 competenze di
base articolate secondo i 4 assi culturali, ma non sulle competenze di cittadinanza (1. imparare ad
imparare; 2. progettare; 3. comunicare; 4. collaborare e partecipare; 5. agire in modo autonomo e
responsabile; 6. risolvere i problemi; 7. individuare collegamenti e relazioni; 8. acquisire ed
interpretare l’informazione)” (Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca & Ministero
dell’Economia e delle Finanze, 2010, p. 8).
3
“L’articolazione delle Indicazioni per materie di studio mira ad evidenziare come ciascuna
disciplina - con i propri contenuti, le proprie procedure euristiche, il proprio linguaggio – concorra
ad integrare un percorso di acquisizione di conoscenze e di competenze molteplici, la cui
consistenza e coerenza è garantita proprio dalla salvaguardia degli statuti epistemici dei singoli
domini disciplinari, di contro alla tesi che l’individuazione, peraltro sempre nomenclatoria, di
astratte competenze trasversali possa rendere irrilevanti i contenuti di apprendimento (La
Raccomandazione del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 23 aprile 2008 sulla costituzione del
Quadro europeo delle qualifiche per l’apprendimento permanente, definisce la competenza quale
“Comprovata capacita di utilizzare conoscenze, abilita e capacita personali, sociali e/o
metodologiche, in situazioni di lavoro o di studio e nello sviluppo professionale e personale” (Ibid.).
4
Empowermentis the process of expanding one’s possibilities which aims to increase the capacity to
acting one’s context and make choices. It is a technique that leverages existing resources to increase
self-determination. Being empowered means to been dowed with higher powers in order to satisfy
the demands of the context in which one is located, and to express one’s own creative and
innovative capacity.
5
Where not otherwise stated, the main references used for this and the following paragraphs are:
Paolone, 2010; Palomba & Paolone, Forthcoming.
6
The plexus is problematic not only for the inexperience of the Italian teachers in assessing
competencies, but also, as the empirical study has shown, for the complexity of the problem
“assessment of the returnee” and its heterogeneity in comparison to the traditional goals of the
Italian school, based on the disciplinary knowledge of international models.
7
Where not otherwise stated, the main references used for this paragraph are: Kim, 1986, 1991, 2001,
2005.

REFERENCES

Bertagna, G. (2004). Valutare tutti, valutare ciascuno [Evaluate all, evaluate each]. Brescia: La Scuola.
Bizzarri, F., De Marchis P. & Ruffino R. (1999). Lo scambio interculturale. Istruzioni per l’uso
[Intercultural exchange. Instructions for use]. Rome: Armando.
Boutin, G. & Julien L. (2000). L’obsession de la compétence. Son impact sur l’école et la formation des
enseignants [Obsession with competence. Its impact on the school and teacher training]. Montreal:
Éditions Nouvelles.
Cambi, F. (2004). Saperi e competenze [Knowledge and skills]. Rome: Laterza.
Cicatelli, S. (2009). Le competenze nella legislazione europea ed italiana [Skills in European and Italian
law]. In G. Malizia & S. Cicatelli, Verso la scuola delle competenze[Towards the school of
competence] (pp. 81–108). Rome: Armando Editore.

187
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

Cicatelli, S. (2010). La nuova scuola superiore [The new high school]. Retrieved from
http://www.cnos-scuola.it/newsletter/allegati/2010/febbraio/12_a_Cicatelli_ISS_testo.pdf
Commission of the European Communities. (1993). Growth, competitiveness, employment. The
challenges and ways forward into the 21st century – White paper, Parts A and B. COM (93) 700
final/A and B, 5 December 1993. Bulletin of the European Communities, Supplement 6/93.
Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/1139/
Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Communication from the Commission. “Education
& Training 2010”. The success of the Lisbon strategy hinges on urgent reforms (Draft joint interim
report on the implementation of the detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of
education and training systems in Europe). Retrieved fromhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0685:FIN:EN:PDF
Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Communication from the Commission. A coherent
framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in
education and training. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
COM:2007:0061:FIN:EN:PDF
Cort, P. (2010). Stating the obvious: The European qualifications framework is not a neutral evidence-
based policy tool. European Educational Research Journal, 9(3), 304–316.
Crahay, M. (2006). Dangers, incertitudes et incomplétude de la logique de la compétence en éducation
[Dangers, uncertainties and incompleteness of the logic of competence in education]. Revue
Française de Pédagogie, 154, 97–110.
Crahay, M. (2010). Pericoli, incertezze e incompletezza della logica delle competenze [Dangers,
uncertainties and incompleteness of the logic of competence in education]. In Associazione
TreELLLe e Fondazione per la Scuola della Compagnia di San Paolo, Seminario n.12, aprile 2010,
La scuola dell’obbligo tra conoscenze e competenze[Seminar n.12, April 2010, Compulsory
education between knowledge and skills] (pp. 53–64). Retrieved from http://www.treellle.org/files/
lll/seminario_12_sito.pdf
Dillard, J. M. & Chisholm, G. B. (1983). Counselling the international student in a multicultural
context. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 101–105.
European Council & European Commission. (2010). 2010 joint progress report of the Council and the
Commission on the implementation of the ‘education and training 2010 work programme’.
Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:117:0001:0007:
EN:PDF
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2006). Recommendation of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competencies for lifelong learning
(2006/962/EC). Retrieved from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:EN:PDF
European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2008). Recommendation of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications
Framework for lifelong learning (2008/C 111/01). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:111:0001:0007:EN:PDF
Ferratini, P. (2009). Liceo Gelmini [Gelmini high school]. Il Mulino, 5(9), 724–733. Retrieved from
http://www.rivistailmulino.it/journal/article/index/Article/Journal:RWARTICLE:30246/Item/Journa
l:RWARTICLE:30246
Grossi, L. & Serra, S. (2002). Mobilità studentesca e successo formative [Student mobility and
educational success]. Rome: Armando.
Grove, C. & Hansel, B. (1986). The AFS impact study: Final report. AFS research report 33. New
York: AFS International/Intercultural programs, Inc.
Hammer, M. (2005). Quali competenze interculturali si acquisiscono in un anno all’estero?[What
intercultural skills are learned in a year abroad?]. Colle Val d’Elsa: Fondazione Intercultura.
Herlz, G. D. (1988). Identity – lost and found: Patterns of migration and psychological and psychosocial
adjustment of migrants. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 78(344), 159–165.

188
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

Hingel, A. (2001). Education policies and European governance: Contribution to the interservice
groups on European Governance (Development of educational policies). Brussels: European
Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/
governance/areas/group12/contribution_education_en.pdf
Hirtt, N. (2009). L’approche par compétences: Une mystification pédagogique [Competency-based
approach: A mystifying pedagogy]. L’écoledémocratique, 39, 1–34. Retrieved from http://www.
skolo.org/spip.php?article1099&lang=fr
Hull, W.F. (1978). Foreign Students in the United States of America: Coping Behaviour Within the
Educational Environment. New York: Praeger.
Kim, Y. Y. (1986). Understanding the social context of inter-group communication: A personal network
theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intergroup communication (pp. 86–95). London: Edward Arnold.
Kim, Y. Y. (1991). Intercultural communication competence. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Kozenny (Eds.),
Cross-cultural interpersonal communication (pp. 259–275). Newbury Park: Sage.
Kim, Y. Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural
adaptation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In W. B. Gudykunst
(Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 375–400). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Le Boterf, G. (2007). Dall’ingegneria della formazione all’ingegneria di un territorio apprendente:
L’ideazione di contesti di apprendimento [From the engineering of training to the engineering of a
learning space: The design of learning environments]. In C. Del Don, La crisi dei confini. Verso
un’ingegneria dello sviluppo regionale [The crisis of boundaries] (pp. 48–66). Milan: Franco Angeli.
Le Boterf, G. (2008). Repenser les compétences [Rethinking skills]. Paris: Eyrolles.
Lisbon European Council. (2000). Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000, Presidency
Conclusions. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm
Malizia, G. & Nanni, C. (2010). La riforma delle superiori va a regime. Problemi e prospettive
Orientamenti Pedagogici, 57(6), 1047–1067.
Milana, M. (2008).El discurso post-Lisboa sobre el desajuste de las habilidades y la mejora de las
competencias [The post-Lisbon discourse on skill mismatches and competence upgrading].
Profesorado. Revista de currículum y formación del profesorado,12(3), 1–18. Retrieved from
http://www.ugr.es/local/recfpro/rev123ART8.pdf
Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. (2007). Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, Dipartimento per
l’Istruzione, Direzione Generale per gli Affari Internazionali, Programmazione dei Fondi Strutturali
e Fondo Aree sottoutilizzate 2007–2013 – Linee di programmazione – Avvio dei processi di
valutazione, Prot.n.Int/3425/5, Roma 17 maggio 2007 [Ministry of Education, Department of
Education, Directorate General for International Affairs, Planning of the underutilised Structural
Funds and Areas Fund 2007–2013 – Lines of programming – Start of assessment processes,
Prot.n.Int/3425/5, Rome 17 May 2007]. Retrieved from http://archivio.pubblica.istruzione.it/
fondistrutturali/allegati/documenti/200713/prot3425_07.pdf
Ministero dell’Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2010). Ministero dell’Istruzione
dell’Università e della Ricerca, Dipartimento per la Programmazione e la Gestione delle Risorse
Umane, Finanziarie e Strumentali, Direzione Generale per gli Affari Internazionali – Ufficio V –
Oggetto: Cooperazione bilaterale italo-francese. Progetto di mobilità docenti “scambi
professionali”A.S. 2010/2011 [Ministry of Education and Research, Department of Planning and
Human Resource Management, Directorate General for International Affairs – Office V – Subject:
Bilateral cooperation between Italy and France. Mobility project teachers’ “professional exchanges”
A.S. 2010/2011]. Retrieved from http://www.istruzione.it/web/istruzione/prot3637_10
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca & Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze.
(2010). Indicazioni nazionali riguardanti gli obiettivi specifici di apprendimento concernenti le
attività e gli insegnamenti compresi nei piani degli studi previsti per i percorsi liceali di cui
all’articolo 10, comma 3, del decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 15 marzo 2010, n. 89, in
relazione all’articolo 2, commi 1 e 3, del medesimo regolamento [National guidelines on the
specific learning objectives related to the activities and teachings of the studies included in the plans

189
C. ROVERSELLI AND A. R. PAOLONE

provided for high school courses in article 10, paragraph 3 of the Presidential Decree 15 March
2010, n. 89, in relation to article 2, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the regulation]. Retrieved from
http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/licei2010///indicazioni_nuovo_impaginato/_decreto_indicazi
oni_nazionali.pdf
Morandini, M. C. (2001). Da Boncompagni a Casati: La costruzione del sistema scolastico nazionale
(1848–1861) [From Boncompagni to Casati: The construction of the national school system
(1848–1861)]. In L. Pazzaglia & R. Sani (Eds.), Scuola e società nell’Italia unita [School and
society in united Italy]. Brescia: La Scuola.
Moscato M. T. (2007). Le “competenze chiave” per l’Europa[“Key competencies” for Europe]. Nuova
Secondaria, 24(5), 22–24.
MIUR. (2010a). Linee guida per il passaggio al nuovo ordinamento (D.P.R. 15.03.2010, art.8, comma
6)Istituti professionali [Guidelines for transition to the new system (DPR 15.03.2010, article 8,
paragraph 6) Professional institutes]. Retrieved from http://nuoviprofessionali.indire.it/
MIUR. (2010b). Linee guida per il passaggio al nuovo ordinamento (D.P.R. 15.03.2010, art.8, comma 3)
Istituti tecnici [Guidelines for transition to the new system (DPR 15.03.2010, article 8, paragraph 3)
Technical institutes].Retrieved from http://nuovitecnici.indire.it/
MIUR(2010c). Profili educativi [Educational profiles]. Retrieved from http://archivio.pubblica.
istruzione.it/riforma_superiori/nuovesuperiori/index.html
Nardiello, M. G. (2010). La scuola dell’obbligo tra conoscenze e competenze [The school of knowledge
and skills]. In Associazione TreELLLe e Fondazione per la Scuola della Compagnia di San Paolo,
Seminario n.12, aprile 2010, La scuola dell’obbligo tra conoscenze e competenze [Seminar n.12,
April 2010, Compulsory education between knowledge and skills] (pp. 99–102). Retrieved from
http://www.treellle.org/files/lll/seminario_12_sito.pdf
Niceforo, O. (2010). Da Berlinguer a Gelmini. Come (non) cambia la scuola [From Berlinger to
Gelmini. How the school does (not) change]. Rome: Editoriale Tuttoscuola.
Nóvoa, A. & deJong-Lambert, W. (2003). Educating Europe: An analysis of EU educational policies. In
D. Phillips & H. Ertl (Eds.), Implementing European Unioneducation and training policy. A
comparative study of issues in four member states (pp. 41–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Padilla, A. M., Wagatsuma, Y. & Lindholm, K. J. (1985). Acculturation and personality as predictors of
stress in Japanese and Japanese-Americans. Journal of Social Psychology, 125(3), 295–305.
Palomba, D. (2010). L’internazionalizzazione della scuola fra intercultura e comparazioni internazionali
[Internationalisation of the school by way of intercultural and international comparisons]. In
D. Palomba, A. R. Paolone, C. Roverselli, O. Niceforo & C. Cappa, Internazionalizzazione della
scuola e mobilità studentesca. Il ruolo degli insegnanti [Internationalisation of the school and student
mobility. The role of teachers] (pp. 5–14). Colle di Val d’Elsa:Fondazione Intercultura onlus.
Palomba, D., Paolone, A. R., Roverselli, C., Niceforo O. & Cappa, C. (2010). Internazionalizzazione
della scuola e mobilità studentesca. Il ruolo degli insegnanti [Internationalisation of the school and
student mobility. The role of teachers]. Colle di Val d’Elsa:Fondazione Intercultura onlus.
Palomba, D. (2009). Education and state formation in Italy. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.),
International handbook of comparative education (pp. 195–217). London: Springer.
Palomba, D. & Paolone, A. R. (2011). Competencies vs. interculturality: Student exchanges in the age
of PISA. In M. A. Pereyra, G.-H- Kotthoff & R. Cowen (Eds.), PISA under examination: Changing
knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Rotterdam: Sense.
Paolone, A. R. (2006). Etnografi dell’educazione, soggettività, terzo codice. Riflessioni per uno studio
sull’operato di ricercatori etnografici nelle scuole [Ethnographers of education, subjectivity, third
code. Reflections for a study on ethnographical researchers’ actions in schools]. In M. Benadusi
(Ed.), Dislocare l’antropologia [Displace anthropology] (pp. 191–205). Rimini: Guaraldi.
Paolone, A. R. (2010). I returnees di ‘lungo corso’: L’atteggiamento degli insegnanti [Returnees from a
‘long journey’: Teacher attitudes]. In D. Palomba, A. R. Paolone, C. Roverselli, O. Niceforo &
C. Cappa, Internazionalizzazione della scuola e mobilità studentesca. Il ruolo degli insegnanti
[Internationalisation of the school and student mobility. The role of teachers] (pp. 17–85). Colle di
Val d’Elsa: Fondazione Intercultura onlus.

190
 THE ASSESSMENT OF COMPETENCIES

Pellerey, M. (2010a). Ripensare le competenze e la loro identità nel mondo della scuola e della
formazione. Prima parte: Le radici filosofiche e gli apporti psicologici [Re-thinking skills and their
identity in the world of education and training. First part: The philosophical roots and psychological
contributions]. Orientamenti Pedagogici, 57(2), 201–224.
Pellerey, M. (2010b). Ripensare le competenze e la loro identità nel mondo della scuola e della
formazione. Seconda parte: L’approccio per competenze nei processi educativi e formativi
[Re-thinking skills and their identity in the world of education and training. Second part: The
approach to skills in educational and training processes]. Orientamenti Pedagogici, 57(3), 379–400.
Pellerey, M. (2010c). Ripensare le competenze e la loro identità nel mondo della scuola e della
formazione. Terza parte: l’approccio per competenze e la pratica educativa scolastica [Re-thinking
skills and their identity in the world of education and training. Third part: The skills approach to
education and educational practice]. Orientamenti Pedagogici, 57(4), 616–649.
Rey, B. (1996). Les compétences transversales en question [Transversal skills in question]. Paris: ESF.
Rubin, D. L. (1993). The other half of international teaching assistant training: Classroom
communication workshops for international students. Innovative Higher Education, 17(3), 183–193.
Rychen, D. S. & Salganik, L. H. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and a well-
functioning society. Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.
Sandhu, D. S. & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturative stress scale for international
students: Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports, 75, 435–448.
Talamo, G. (1960). La scuola dalla legge Casati all’inchiesta del 1864 [School from the law of Casati
to the investigation of 1864]. Milan: Giuffrè.
Torbiorn, I. (1982). Living abroad: Personal adjustment and personnel policy in the overseas setting.
New York: Wiley.
Turner, V. (1974). Dramas, fields, metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Turner, V. (1982). The ritual process. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Unità Italiana di Eurydice. (2009). La mobilità nella formazione dei docenti in Europa, MIUR,
Direzione Generale Affari Internazionali [Mobility in teacher education in Europe, MUIR,
Directorate General for International Affairs]. Retrieved from http://www.indire.it/lucabas/
lkmw_file/eurydice///LLP%20Mobilita%20x%20web.pdf
Ward, C., Bochner, S. & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Hove: Routledge.
World Health Organization. (1993). Life skills education for children and adolescents in schools.
Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1994/WHO_MNH_PSF_93.7A_Rev.2.pdf

Carla Roverselli
Associate Professor
University of Rome Tor Vergata

Anselmo R. Paolone
University of Udine

191
 ELEFTHERIOS KLERIDES

11. COMPARING IDENTITIES IN DISSIMILAR

SPACES AND TIMES
Hybridity, Border Crossing, Indeterminacies, Pluralism

INTRODUCTION

This chapter examines notions of identity in the school historiography of the

Greek-Cypriot community and England at two different historical moments: the
period after the Greek-led coup and Turkish invasion of 1974 in Cyprus stretching
up to its accession into the European Union in 2004, and, the age of British
imperialism in England, with an emphasis on the period between the high
imperialism of the late 19th century and the collapse of the British Empire in the
1960s and 1970s.
The Greek-Cypriots, an ethnic community struggling to consolidate its place in
Europe and re-unite a divided Cyprus on the basis of a shared state with the
Turkish-Cypriots, are clearly dissimilar from England, a powerful industrial nation
located at the hegemonic core of the British multinational state and the British
Empire. Their school histories and the identities embedded into these histories are
assumed to be similarly dissimilar; a reflection of their different historical
trajectory, cultural codes and political anxieties.
Nevertheless, it is possible to bind together the two diverse settings and subject
their distinctive patterns of historiography and identity to comparative analysis
through a perspective of moments in the making of identity: moments of hybridity,
border crossing, indeterminacy and pluralism. This perspective, seeing school
historiography as a site of identity-work (Schissler & Soysal, 2005; Vickers &
Jones, 2005) and identities as products of and inscriptions in discourse (Benwell &
Stokoe, 2006; De Fina, Schiffrin & Bamberg, 2006), stresses that any identity is
shaped by the heteroglossia of the world and thus, is often made up of diverse
semantic strands. The different voices and threads that go into its composition are
not always effectively combined and their co-existence tends to rule-out the
possibility of determining ‘the’ nature of the identity. As a result, the constituted
identity moves back and forth between the different themes and perspectives that
enter its composition. There are moments where the discrepancies and disjunctions
emanating from heteroglossia and border crossing are bridged, covered-over and
eliminated, and that the outcome is the projection of a pluralist identity.
From this theoretical angle, it is argued that school histories in the two settings
under study articulate identities of a hybrid character. The hybrid identity in

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 193–208.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
E. KLERIDES

Greek-Cypriot histories is synthesised out of elements from a Greek and a Cypriot

identity, and in histories in England, from a British and an English identity.
As a consequence of hybridity, identity in each setting displays indeterminacies,
which are specifically derived from oscillations between the two identities that go
into its composition. The indeterminate moments are, in the Greek-Cypriot case,
signs of a dilemma – Greeks or Cypriots? – and they are materialised as
ambivalence – i.e. an element of identity in histories may be taken to have Greek
or Cypriot meaning. In the case of England, the moments of indeterminacy are
manifestations of confusion or conflation – British or English? – and they are
embodied in histories as ambiguity – i.e. an element of identity may be taken to
have British and English meaning.
There are moments in histories where the indeterminacies of hybridity and
border crossing, are worked out, and the outcome is the making of identities that
also exhibits pluralism (Greeks and Cypriots; British and English). While moments
of pluralism in Greek-Cypriot histories are a result of reconciliation between
antagonistic Greekness and Cypriotness, in histories that were used in England
they are a product of clarification of a blurred boundary between Britishness and
Englishness.
The chapter is divided into three parts. It begins with a genealogy of identity in
the Greek-Cypriot community and in England, with the intention of highlighting
the distinctive nature of the two settings. In doing so, it sketches archives of
national and ethnic resources and rules of identity-formation school historians may
or may not have drawn upon in their histories to constitute identities for their pupil
readership. After that, hybrid, indeterminate and pluralist moments of identity-
making are explored, in Greek-Cypriot histories first and then in histories
consumed in England, through an inter-discursive approach. This approach is a
mode of textual analysis that is based on the principle that any discourse (of
identity) is related to and draws upon other discourses (of identity), both diachronic
and synchronic, in order to create its own order (Fairclough, 1992, pp. 101–136).
The third part, the conclusion, reflects briefly on the theoretical and comparative
approach of the chapter.

ARCHIVES OF IDENTITIES: NATION AND ETHNICITY

The origins of Greek identity in Cyprus are traced to the founding of Greece. As a
modern state, Greece emerged in 1830 out of the collapsing Ottoman Empire. In
the decades following its creation, the Greek state undertook the building of a
Greek nation (Kitromilides, 1994). The identity of the nation was grounded on the
historical theory of its continuity from ancient Hellas via the medieval Byzantine
Empire to modern Greece and this interpretation of the past led to the invention of
the Greco-Christian civilisation as the nation’s culture. Taking into account that
19th-century Greece was limited to a small part of the Balkan Peninsula, the
continuity thesis meant that Greek identity extended beyond the territorial confines
of the Greek state. It incorporated Ottoman areas in the Balkans and the Near East
imagined to have been historically Greek lands and home to unredeemed Greeks.

194
 COMPARING IDENTITIES IN DISSIMILAR SPACES AND TIMES

The term Hellenism was used to signify the entirety of the Greeks living within
and outside the state (Koliopoulos & Veremis, 2004).
As an inseparable part of the imaginary geography of Greater Greece, Cyprus
experienced the transfer of Greekness from the late 19th century onward. This
process included “adaptation and fusion” (Loizides, 2007, p. 173), leading to a
new, translated Greekness on the island (Klerides, 2009a). The most important
feature of the Greek identity of Cyprus became a particular reading of the island’s
history and culture. From the Greek perspective, the past was – and still is –
signified in terms of resistance and persistence: despite the de-Hellenising efforts
of the various peoples that conquered Cyprus at different times, a pure Greco-
Christian culture had persisted on the island since time immemorial (Papadakis
1993, pp. 27–34). This account of history and culture legitimised the demand for
enosis, the union of Cyprus with Greece, in a twofold way. It positioned the Greek-
speaking Christian majority of the island within the symbolic boundaries of
Hellenism and depicted the island of Cyprusasa place that is 3,000 years Greek
(Bryant, 2004). It also made the terms Greeks and Cypriots almost synonymous
and gave little attention to the Muslim Ottoman minority of Cyprus. In the Greek
discourse of identity, the Ottoman Muslims of the island were portrayed as Turks,
facilitating the minority’s identification with the Turkish nation, as established in
Anatolia in the 1920s (Zürcher, 2004).
Parallel to Greek identity, a Cypriot identity developed on the island. Unlike
Greekness, that focuses on the cultural and religious ties between Cyprus and
Greece, Cypriotness promotes the differentiation of Cyprus from Greece and fuses
the two Cypriot ethnicities into an ‘imagined community’ of Cypriots.
Expressions of Cypriot identity are found in leftist politics (Peristianis, 2006,
pp. 102–109). Since the 1920s – and in opposition to the Orthodox Church of
Cyprus and the Right – the Left has been advancing the idiom of ‘Cypriots first’.
The Cypriots are considered to be united by bonds of friendship and
neighbourliness, by an emotional attachment to the shared homeland, and by a
collective history of socio-economic problems and struggles.
The “Cypriot mélange” was also a form of Cypriotness (Given, 1997). It was
promoted by the British administration of Cyprus in the 1930s to combat enosis
and perpetuate colonial rule (1878–1959). This identity recounted that the Cypriots
were neither Greeks nor Turks but a corrupt island race deriving from the recurrent
heteronomy of the past. It also projected the idea of a Cypriot hybrid culture that is
synthesised by the cultures of the island’s various conquerors.
The first post-1974 years saw a rise of Cypriotness as a result of the Greek-led
coup and the Turkish invasion (1974) which divided Cyprus along Greek and
Turkish lines – something that still persists. At that time, there was an emphasis on
Cypriot autonomy, Cypriot symbols and a Cypriot people hood (of Greeks and
Turks), sharing elements of folk tradition and everyday culture (Mavratsas, 1998,
pp. 81–97). This version of Cypriot identity served to justify the political vision of
a re-united Cyprus on the basis of a common state between Greek-Cypriots and
Turkish-Cypriots, and prevailed until the return of a redefined Greekness in the
1990s. The new Greek identity excluded enosis but reaffirmed the cultural
membership of Cyprus to Hellenism (Mavratsas, 1998).

195
E. KLERIDES

The two identities, Greekness and Cypriotness, are antagonistic identities. They are
marked by a set of oppositions, such as Greek versus Cypriot history of Cyprus;
Cyprus as a Greek land versus Cyprus as an independent terrain belonging to its
people; pure Greek culture versus Cypriot cultural mélange; Greeks versus
Cypriots; enosis versus independence. This opposition is, for Papadakis (1998), a
manifestation of “the dilemma of the Greek Cypriot identity” (pp. 152–153) which
emerged in a radical form after 1974. On the one hand, Greek-Cypriots’ belief in
their Greek heritage and their dependence on Greece for international recognition
require a focus on Greekness. On the other hand, the need for rapprochement with
the Turkish-Cypriots to re-unite the island and create a shared state demands an
emphasis on Cypriotness. The dilemma is tenuously and temporarily resolved
through “the balancing option” which produces a dual identity – Greeks and
Cypriots – and which is captured in the term “Greek-Cypriots” (Peristianis, 2006,
pp. 114–115).
If Greekness and Cypriotness are often characterised by relations of opposition,
overlaps and intersections tend to typify the link between British and English
identities to the point that they are said to be “so interfused as to be virtually
indistinguishable” (Kumar, 2003, p. 156). This led many scholars to variously
conceptualise the making of identity in England in terms of conflation, confusion
or enigma (Kumar, 2003; Langlands, 1999; Wellings, 2002). At the same time,
there is scholarly consensus that British and English identities also have distinct
features and characteristics.
The origins of Britishness are traced to the making of Great Britain. As a state,
Great Britain emerged in 1707 with the union of Scotland with England and Wales.
Ireland became part of the state in 1801, though its south part was separated in
1922. In her Britons: Forging the Nation, Colley (2003) showed that a British
identity was invented in the period between 1707 and the accession of Queen
Victoria to the throne in 1837. This identity, fusing the English, Irish, Scots and
Welsh together and existing over and above ethnic identities, was created around
the British state and its institutions of parliament, monarchy and liberty. It
exemplified a variety of versions excluding occasionally either Wales or Ireland,
or, both.
Many of the components of this state-based identity were drawn from the largest
and most powerful ethnicity in the British Isles; the English. For instance, the
British tradition of parliamentary sovereignty limiting the Crown and stretching
unbroken from the Middle Ages is English (Crick, 1991). Likewise, British
traditional liberty is a motif that was appropriated from the English political
conflicts of the 17th century (Langlands, 1999).
Yet, Britishness was not and is not mere Englishness and ought to be seen as
“four nations and one” (Kearney, 1991, p. 4). In support of the ‘four nations’
claim, the Industrial Revolution is often cited as a pan-Britannic achievement.
Imperialism was also a joint British venture. The foremost feature of imperial
Britishness was the mission to ‘civilise’ the ‘less fortunate’ races of the world,
itself grounded though on an English mythology of higher ideals of liberty and
superior institutions of governance (Wellings, 2002).

196
 COMPARING IDENTITIES IN DISSIMILAR SPACES AND TIMES

Although English ethnicity played a large part in the making of British identity,
Britishness affected the meaning of an English national identity, which was to
emerge at the turn of the 20th century when Britain’s industrial supremacy was
threatened and faith in the empire began to waver. English identity was constructed
around the idea that the English were centrally placed in the realisation of the
British ‘civilising’ duty (Kumar, 2003). Besides the British Empire, the British
state also provided a framework, shaping Englishness. The English, argued Crick
(1991), “knew that the main business of [domestic] politics was holding the United
Kingdom together” (p. 92).
There was, however, no systematic attempt to overtly articulate Englishness, for
this would have threatened the integrity of the state and empire that the English
viewed as their creations. The identification of the English with larger entities
(empire and state) and larger causes (civilising mission and maintenance of polity)
muted English identity, hiding it by making it implicit in manifestations of British
identity, which lead to a blurring of the distinction between England and Britain –
English and British. In Crick’s (1991) terms, “the most elusive thing is Englishness
itself” (p. 91).
This changed – albeit to a limited extent – in the late 19th and early 20th century,
the time of “a diffuse and imprecise Englishness” (Kumar, 2003, pp. 175–225).
Unlike Britishness, that unites the four British peoples in various combinations, the
focus of Englishness is the differentiation of the English from the Irish, Scots and
Welsh. Apart from placing England at the centre of empire and state, English
identity depicts the English as descendants of the liberty-loving Anglo-Saxons who
came to south-east Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries and brought with them their
imperfect political institutions and forms of freedom (MacDougall, 1982). The
evolution towards a modern British democracy was perceived as having emerged
out of England’s Anglo-Saxon heritage. This is the Whig interpretation of English
history: a story of the continuous and cumulative growth of English liberty since
Anglo-Saxon times (Jones, 2003). Often this version of the past was signified as
‘British’ history. As Kearney (1991) put it, during the heyday of the British state,
nation and Empire, “it became convenient for many in dealing with the history of
the United Kingdom to equate it with the history of England” (p. 1).
The making of an archive of two identities in each setting made it possible for
school historians to articulate hybrid identities in their histories for children.
Combining resources and rules of formation from opposing or overlapping identities
also leads to oscillations between the combined identities and thus, indeterminacies.
The indeterminate hybrid identity manifests itself differently in the two settings: as
ambivalence in Greek-Cypriot histories and as ambiguity in histories that were
consumed in England. There are moments where the disjunctions and discrepancies
emanating from hybridity and border crossing are worked out and the effect is the
projection of identities that also demonstrate pluralism.

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND IDENTITY IN THE GREEK-CYPRIOT COMMUNITY

This section looks at the construction of identity in Greek-Cypriot history

textbooks that were written in the post-1974 period. The scope of analysis is to

197
E. KLERIDES

illustrate the intermingling of Greekness and Cypriotness, to show that one effect
of this mixing and oscillations between the two identities is that it produces
ambivalence (Greeks or Cypriots?), and, to suggest that partial reconciliations
between the two antithetical identities lead to duality – Greeks and Cypriots.
Moments of hybridity, ambivalence and pluralism are identified and described
through a set of concepts often used to construct and represent ‘imagined
communities’ (Klerides, 2009b, pp. 1232–1233; Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl &
Liebhart, 1999). Here, these concepts are ‘culture’ (the arts, religion and language
of the ‘self’), ‘territory’ (the geo-body of the ‘self’), ‘past’ (the history of the ‘self’)
and ‘group-labelling’ (the identity of the ‘self’).

Culture: Merged Cypriot or Pure Greek?

An implicit or explicit concept of culture is discernible in textbooks. On the one
hand, this culture is often presented as a merged entity, and a product of the fusion
of various cultures. The Cypriot cultural mélange is a sign of Cypriotness and is
illustrated here with an example from Georgiades’ History of Cyprus (1978),
where Cypriot culture is cued by the evocation of a Cypriot painting style deriving
from the assimilation of Byzantine and Western arts:
…the Cypriot painter and iconographer, with a skilful combination of the
Byzantine painting style, which became his passion, with the classical
painting of Renaissance, which he had known from the Franks, created
unique masterpieces (p. 219).
On the other hand, the notion of culture tends to be signified in textbooks as pure
Greco-Christian, alluding to Greek identity. In his history, Georgiades (1978) also
promoted the Greek reading of culture by trivialising Frankish influences on the
Greek-Cypriot community’s Orthodox tradition and Greek language:
When the Franks came to Cyprus, nobody could believe that when they
departed, after three hundred years, they would have left no sign of their
transition except from a couple of gothic-style churches and a handful of
Frankish words in the pure Greek language of the island (p. 221).
The co-existence of conflicting views on culture creates moments of ambivalence,
making it almost impossible for readers of such histories to determine ‘the’ nature
of culture and identity. What is the island’s culture; Cypriot or Greek? Who are the
people; Cypriots or Greeks?

The Island of Cyprus: A Greek Land or an Independent Cypriot Territory?

A rather ambivalent projection of territory is also evident in textbooks and this is
an effect of mixing two competing images about the territorial character of Cyprus.
What is mixed is the proposition of Greekness, that Cyprus is a Greek land, with

198
 COMPARING IDENTITIES IN DISSIMILAR SPACES AND TIMES

the insinuation of Cypriotness, that the island is an autonomous and strategically-

located terrain in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.
In textbooks, the narration of antiquity includes utterances such as “the Greeks
carried out military operations to throw the Persians off Greek lands, one of which
was Cyprus” (Pantelidou, Protopapa & Yiallourides, 1994, p. 36). Similarly,
sketches of medieval times contain personification metaphors: the capital of the
Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, is depicted as “the heart of the Greek world”
and Cyprus as amongst “the limbs of the Empire” (Pantelidou & Chatzikosti, 1991,
p. 14; Polydorou, 1978, p. 23). Such representations position Cyprus within the
symbolic frontiers of the two historically imagined Greek worlds – the ancient
Hellenic world and the world of the Byzantine Empire – portraying it as a land that
belongs to Hellenism.
The view of Cyprus as a Greek land is uneasily positioned next to the view of
Cyprus as an independent and distinct territory with a unique geographical location
that is self-determining of its people’s culture and history. The Cypriot reading of
territory is embedded in the following extract, in the intermingling of history,
culture, people and land that serves to promote the independence of Cyprus and its
separateness from Greece.
The position of the island in the Mediterranean, close to countries with long-
established civilization like Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt – at the
crossroad of East and West – was for Cyprus both a blessing and a curse.
A blessing, because it became the place of meeting of ideas and cultures that
Cyprus assimilated productively, creating a culture that has the stamp of its
distinctive personality; a curse, because its strategic position attracted, from
the ancient times until today, those who were thirsty for power in the East
and the Mediterranean (Pantelidou, Chatzikosti & Christou, 1990, p. 2).

The Past: Cypriot Heteronomy and Greek Persistence?

Moments of hybridisation are also evident in the making of a sense of past. There
are at least two different interpretations of the past of Cyprus in textbooks, each
corresponding to a different identity. The first is the narrative of resistance and
persistence. It is a trace of Greekness and stresses the preservation of the Greek
character of the island over the longue durée. The second is the narrative of
repeated heteronomy and freedom struggles and this is a sign of the colonisation of
textbooks by Cypriotness.
In their preface of History of Cyprus: From the Neolithic to the Roman Period,
Pantelidou, Chatzikosti and Christou (1990) put forward the Greek reading of
history:
Many peoples made their way through Cyprus or conquered it: Phoenicians,
Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Ptolemies, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders,
Franks, Venetians, Turks [sic] and English [sic]. However, the inhabitants
safeguarded the Greek character which had been formed since the

199
E. KLERIDES

Mycenaeans had settled on the island, at the end of the Later Bronze
period… (p. 2)
Textbooks also signify the past, from a Cypriot perspective, as a story of a small
people struggling for freedom against great powers. In the preface of History of
Cyprus: From the Stone Age to the Age of Christianity, Leontiou and Ioannides
(1980) stressed:
Many times, big and powerful neighbouring peoples were conquering
Cyprus, because it was a rich but small country, at a strategic location in the
Mediterranean Sea. The Phoenicians founded commercial centres. The
Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Romans occupied Cyprus for
many years. The Cypriots, who loved freedom, undertook numerous battles
to throw the conquerors off their land (p. 10).
The co-existence of Greekness and Cypriotness does not generate ambivalence
here. The two opposing perspectives on the past are successfully brought together
in a complementary sort of relationship projecting a joint message (i.e. the people
of Cyprus maintained their Greek cultural character despite the fact that throughout
their history, they have been politically subjugated to other peoples), and thus, a
dual identity: Greeks and Cypriots.
Yet, the Greek and Cypriot interpretations of the past are not always effectively
married and this is apparent in the representation of certain historical events. One
such event is the anti-colonial struggle. Pantelidou, Chatzikosti and Savvidou
(1992)wrote of this event as follows: “The Cypriots pursued the demand of Enosis
with Greece with peaceful means, but they met the refusal of the English [sic]
government; having exhausted these means, they undertook the armed struggle of
1955–59 to liberate the island from the English [sic] colonisers” (p. 184). In the
eyes of the interpreter, the view that this struggle was carried out with the aim of
setting the island free is a cue of Cypriotness: it implies that the Cypriots fought for
independent statehood. The view that this struggle was aimed at uniting Cyprus
with Greece evokes Greek identity. The co-articulation of opposing views of this
event leaves the reader puzzled about the identity of ‘the Cypriots’: Cypriots who
fought for independence or Greeks who fought for enosis?

Who Are the ‘Cypriots’?

Group-labelling is also useful in addressing moments of hybridity and ambivalence
in identity construction. Textbooks often use the term ‘Cypriots’ to identify and
classify the people of Cyprus. In some instances, this term is employed in a way
that alludes to Cypriot identity: the Cypriots are a Cypriot community of Greeks
and Turks. In other occasions, this term is made synonymous to ‘Greeks’ – a usage
drawn from Greek identity. One consequence of the inconsistent way in which the
term ‘Cypriots’ is used is the constitution of indeterminate moments of identity
manifested in that readers are compelled to move back and forth between the two
opposing identities. Constant border crossing is encapsulated in the following
sample of sentences, taken from History of Cyprus: Medieval and Modern Period

200
 COMPARING IDENTITIES IN DISSIMILAR SPACES AND TIMES

(Pantelidou, Chatzikosti & Savvidou, 1992) (numbering of terminology and

emphasis added):
− From the beginning of Anglokratia [British rule] the Cypriots [1] were hoping
that Great Britain, as a liberal power, will fulfil their national aspiration (p. 3).
− During Tourkokratia [Ottoman rule] there were many cases in which Cypriots
[2], Greeks and Turks, cooperated to tackle common problems (p. 108).
− The coming of the English [sic] ended the hated Ottoman administration of
three centuries and opened up prospects for reforms in the political, economic
and social life of Cyprus. Yet, the expectations of the Cypriots [3] for
fundamental changes in all the above domains were never materialised (p. 184).
− The Parliament consisted of 15 Cypriots [4] (12 Greeks + 3 Turks) (p. 193).
− The Cypriots [5] stayed resolute on the ideal of Enosis [Union] and were
reacting rigorously to the de-Hellenising policy of the local government
(p. 226).
This cluster of sentences manifests a pattern of alternation between Greekness and
Cypriotness such that certain uses of ‘Cypriots’ are fairly clearly attributable to one
position or another. In its first and fifth occurrence, the term articulates an
exclusive Cypriot community of Greeks, who hold the aspiration of being united
with Greece. The second and fourth instances of this term refer to a Cypriot
community of Greeks and Turks. The third occurrence of the term is ambivalent
and this is because the general and immediate narrative environments within which
it occurs contain traces of Greek and Cypriot identities. On the one hand, the
designation of the Ottoman rule as ‘hated’ and the expectation that Great Britain
would permit the political union of the island with Greece appear to indicate that
this textbook’s producers invite readers to equate the Cypriots to the Greeks. On
the other hand, the prospect of socio-economic reform would have affected both
Greeks and Turks, which then signals that readers are invited to construe Cypriots
as an inclusive term.
Moments of sequential (Greekness and Cypriotness alternate within the
textbook), mixed (the two discourses are merged in a more complex and less easily
separable way, even within individual clauses as in statement three), and embedded
hybridity (Cypriot identity is contained within the matrix of Greek identity, as in
statements one and five) generate an image of two identities uneasily co-existing,
as manifested in the textbook excerpts above. Their uneasy co-existence registers
the difficulties the writers were facing in trying to negotiate the dilemma of the
Greek-Cypriot identity and reconcile it between the meaning of being Greeks and
being Cypriots.
The constituted identity in school histories that were consumed in imperial
England is equally consisted of moments of hybridity, indeterminacy and
pluralism. It is, however, an identity in which each of these moments takes its own
context-specific shape and meaning. That is, rather than the manifestation of a
dilemma, indeterminacies are reflections of confusion or conflation about who
‘we’ are. They do not register troubles of reconciling between antithetical identities
but rather, fail to draw distinctions between blurred identities. As a result, the

201
E. KLERIDES

hybrid identity does not resemble a mosaic of pieces from other identities but it can
instead be metaphorically represented as a painting in which the colours of two
identities run into one another and overlap.

HISTORIOGRAPHY AND IDENTITY IN ENGLAND

This section examines the constitution of identity in history textbooks that were
used in English schools in the period between high imperialism and the collapse of
the British Empire. The aim of the analysis is to illustrate the co-articulation of
British and English identities; to show that ambiguity (British or English?) is one
effect of this mixture and oscillations between the two identities, and, to suggest
that partial clarifications of the blurred boundary between the two identities lead to
duality – British and English. Moments of hybridity, ambiguity and pluralism are
also identified and described by means of a set of concepts comprising the meta-
narrative of ‘imagined communities’ (Klerides, 2009b, pp. 1232–1233; Wodak, de
Cillia, Reisigl & Liebhart, 1999). Here, these concepts are ‘habitus’ (the mentality,
dispositions and emotional attitudes of the ‘self’), ‘time’ (the ‘past’ and ‘present’
of the ‘self’) and the deictic ‘we’ (the identity of the ‘self’).

A Liberty-Loving Habitus: The English or the British?

The notion of habitus is helpful in addressing hybridity and ambiguity in the making
of identity in textbooks. “Part One” of the textbook The Growth of British
Democracy (Firth, 1949), particularly its sections “The Character of the Englishmen
[sic]” (pp. 11–18) and “The Liberty of Englishmen [sic]” (pp. 139–143), evoke an
English identity with the help of the stereotype of the English as a liberty-loving
habitus:
Englishmen [sic] love independence: every citizen, man or woman, is
expected to share in managing or in choosing those who manage the
country’s affairs, as we have been learning to do for a thousand years.
Englishmen [sic] like order: they submit willingly to regulations which their
elected assemblies have imposed for the good of everyone (Ibid., p. 11).
At the same time, the same textbook promotes, in its preface, a British identity by
generating inferences of a British habitus that also epitomises a love of freedom:
The six books of History (Second Series) explain certain facts in the world in
which British people live now…
Book Four shows in Part I how our love of managing our own affairs was
expressed in ways of government from Norman times to 1939, when the
second [sic] World War began. Part II tells us how British ideas were carried
out or modified in the Commonwealth and Empire to the year 1948 (Ibid.,
pp. 3–4).
The projection of a democratic habitus as a constitutive trait of Britishness first (in
the preface), and then of Englishness (in “Part One”), is a manifestation of the

202
 COMPARING IDENTITIES IN DISSIMILAR SPACES AND TIMES

sequential alternation between the two identities. In many parts of the textbook,
even in a single clause, identity is determined in a more complex and less easily
separable way. For example, in the excerpt from the preface, English constitutional
growth and the realm of Norman England are blended with Britain’s ‘civilising’
mission, Commonwealth, Empire and participation in World War II. There is also
embedded hybridity (an element of one identity is contained with the matrix of
another) in the same extract: the Whig interpretation of English history is signified
as British. Sequential, mixed and embedded hybridity force the reader to oscillate
between Englishness and Britishness, generating moments of ambiguity about
whether a liberty-loving habitus is an English or a British trait.

An Evolutionary Story of Democracy: The English or the British Past?

A sense of past ambiguously placed between Englishness and Britishness is also
evident in textbooks. Firth’s The Growth of British Democracy, written in 1932
and revised in 1949, also serves as an illustration of this tendency. “Part One”,
written by C. Firth herself and entitled “British Democracy at Home”, draws upon
the Whig interpretation of English history to deduce an English identity.
For hundreds of years a love of independence has been part of the English
character; for hundreds of years Englishmen [sic] have been learning to make
and to carry out their own decisions. Slowly, because they disliked change,
and steadily, because they could not bear interference, they worked out a plan
of government which gave them more independence than the people of any
other great modern country had had before the French Revolution (Ibid.,
p. 13).
“Part Two”, written by L. Horsfall and entitled “British Democracy Overseas”,
promotes a British identity through the making of a British past. This past is also
constituted along Whiggish lines but is signified as British.
During the building of the British Empire Britain carried overseas the ideas
of liberty and freedom which the British nation developed during the
thousand years of British history after William the Conqueror landed in
England. Most of the methods of carrying on government and of keeping law
and order, which have been described in Part One of this book, will be found
in the countries which have ceased to be part of the British Empire. This
‘export of political ideas’ as it is called, is probably Britain’s greatest
contribution to the history of the world (Ibid., p. 160).
The signification of the same narrative as English and British creates ambiguity
leaving the interpreter confused about history and identity. Whose past is the story
about – the past of the English or the past of the British? Is constitutional evolution
a source of English singularity within the British Isles or a unifying British feature?
In the extract from “Part Two”, ambiguity is also created by means of embedded
hybridity – an element of English identity, Whig historicity, is contained within the
semantic matrix of Britishness. The effect of this embeddedness is that it is unclear

203
E. KLERIDES

to the interpreter whether evolution towards democracy is a trace of a muted

Englishness or a trace of a Britishness with Englishness at its core. But Britishness
is dependent no more than partly on Englishness within this particular text. To
constitute and represent a community of Britons, Horsfall also deployed
conventions of British identity, such as the British mission to spread democracy
across the world and the belief that British imperialism was a force of good in
world history.

The Present: England Extended or Great Britain?

Much of the ambiguity of identity originates in the blurring of past and present.
This is illustrated with the following portrayal of English and British Parliaments
found in Warner’s textbook (1899) A Brief Survey of British History, revised and
enlarged by Mackie in 1949 (numbering of sentences added):
[1] Of course Parliament of those days differed much from the Parliaments
we know. [2] It was one house, not two, for until Edward III’s reign both
lords and commons sat together. [3] Now the commons are much the more
powerful, but then the lords held the chief power. [4] Now the monarch
follows the wishes of Parliament in the choice of his ministers; then he did
not consult its wishes. [5] Now Parliament meets every year, and is in session
almost all the year round; then it met at long intervals, and its sessions were
short. [6] But in spite of these differences, in nature Parliament of to-day is as
it was then: it refuses to allow the king to take taxes; it asks him to consent to
new laws which it has made; and on occasions we may find it exercising very
great power (p. 43).
The text is informed by both Englishness and Britishness. This is evident in the
projection of an English past and a British present. In sentences one to five, the
English past and the British present are blended in a way which forces interpreters
to move back and forth between the two identities. Their boundaries are clearly
demarcated in the sense that readers are able to follow shifts from one identity to
another. This is achieved through a focus on differences between past and present.
The boundaries of the two identities are blurred in sentence six through an
emphasis on continuity: the English past dissolves into the British present. This
fuzziness insinuates that the British polity is a mere extension of the English
political realm, and at the same time, it carries connotations of the English origins
of British parliamentary democracy. This moment of ambiguity means that it is
unclear whether the projected present is a trace of a muted Englishness or a sign of
a Britishness with Englishness at its core.

Who Are ‘We’?

Hybridity and ambiguity are also embedded in the inconsistent way in which the
pronoun ‘we’ and the possessive pronoun ‘our’ are used in textbooks. In some
occasions, they are used to evoke British solidarity, which often excludes either

204
 COMPARING IDENTITIES IN DISSIMILAR SPACES AND TIMES

Ireland or Wales: “... the great ambition of Edward’s life [was] to join all the parts
of our island, England, Wales, and Scotland, under one sovereign” (Young, 1926,
p. 83). In other occasions, they are used as devices of forging English
distinctiveness: “… the Venerable Bede, whose Ecclesiastical History of the
English People is the source of most of our history up to his time” (Ibid., p. 38). In
many other cases, they are of an uncertain character and open to the British and
English interpretation of identity. Moments of ambiguity of this sort are also an
effect of hybridisation and border crossing, as is indicated in the following extract:
For the French Revolution was different from the revolutions of which you
have read in the history of our own land, such as the ‘Bloodless Revolution’
of 1688 and the Industrial Revolution of the second half of the eighteenth
century, and it was much more terrible (Strong, 1931, p. 15).
In this text, Strong drew on elements from Englishness and Britishness to
constitute a position of identity for his readers. The ‘Bloodless Revolution’, one of
the episodes in the growth of English liberty, is appropriated from Englishness,
while the ‘Industrial Revolution’, a pan-Britannic achievement, is taken from
Britishness. In light of this mixture, the puzzle for readership is to determine
whether the possessive pronoun ‘our’ refers to England or Great Britain.
Often it is up to the reader to fix the meaning of ‘we’ and ‘our’ in a certain way
and to arrive at partial clarifications of the ambiguities of identity. In histories,
there are instances where the enigma of identity is tenuously resolved by textbook
authors and the result is the projection of moments of duality: ‘we’ are English and
along with the Irish, Scots and Welsh, ‘we’ form the British nation. For example,
Young (1926) began his account of the Anglo-Saxon advent in England by
stressing that “The core of our nation to-day is English” (p. 17). Similarly,
Williams and Williams (1949), in The Four Freedom Histories or The People We
Are (Volume III), promoted a common British patriotic habitus without glossing
over ethnic difference. Napoleon, they wrote, “was ignorant, too, of Britain and the
British people. He believed that our people were downtrodden, and would be ready
to join the invaders and dethrone their king. He did not understand that the British
people would sink their differences and unite to defend their native land” (Ibid.,
p. 52). A further moment of duality comes from Warner’s A Brief Survey of British
History (1899). In his text, Warner stressed different racial origins and shared
culture: “So far we have looked on the English as a wild, warlike race, but these
wild, warlike men are, like the Britons, our own ancestors, and from them we have
inherited many things” (Ibid., p. 5).

CONCLUSION

This chapter explores hybrid, indeterminate and pluralist moments in the making
of identity in the domain of school historiography in two dissimilar spaces and
times: the Greek-Cypriot community of Cyprus after 1974, and, England at the age
of British imperialism.
Owing to the heteroglossia of the world, pluralist forms of national and ethnic
identity were constituted in the two settings. The contents of these identities,

205
E. KLERIDES

their strategic foci on constructing either sameness or difference, and the

complex relations between them, constitute in each setting the national and
ethnic dimension of the archive of identity-making. The archive is a
heterogeneous landscape of resources and rules, permitting, and at the same time,
restricting what can be thought about the educated person at a given historical
time.
The hybridisation and indeterminacies of identities in school histories are
possibilities embedded in the very structure of the archive. The making of
identity in histories necessarily positions itself in relation to the archive. It is
constitutive of the archive in normative ways as it is shaped by its contents,
strategic foci and relations. The existence of simultaneous emphasis on sameness
and difference in the archive is the source of moments of hybridity in histories.
Indeterminate moments of identity-making in histories originate in constant
mobility, bordercrossing and oscillations between sameness and difference in the
archive.
The pluralism of identity is another structurally-embodied possibility of the
archive. The making of identity in histories necessarily positions itself in relation
to the archive in creative ways, too. It does not simply reproduce and preserve the
structuring of the archive but it also seeks to contribute to its reshaping by
attempting to accommodate the divergent demands of sameness and difference.
The successful negotiation of these demands in histories results in the projection of
pluralist moments.
In a sense, the approach adopted in this chapter is a response to the call for the
invention of comparative theoretical frameworks which would enable
comparativists to gain a deeper understanding of educational forms, codes and
patterns in radically dissimilar contexts (Carney, 2010; Sultana, 2007). To
formulate such a comparative theoretical lens, this chapter relies on the concept of
identity. It shows, I hope, that this concept, reinvented along discursive lines of
scholarship, can capture what is‘common’ in diverse spaces and times –
heteroglossia, hybridity, indeterminacies, pluralism, archive, normative and
creative relations – without glossing over political, historical and cultural’
difference’ – dilemma versus confusion, ambivalence versus ambiguity,
reconciliation versus clarification – the theme that renders comparisons
academically interesting and intellectually challenging (Cowen, 2002).
By highlighting the power of identity in analysing education in dissimilar
settings, the chapter suggests that this concept still ought to be an important asset
of our intellectual capital as comparativists and a “unit idea” of our field (Cowen,
2009). Research in comparative education along the theoretical bridge of a re-
imagined identity (Klerides, 2009b) is a difficult task as it frequently involves
uncertainty in interpretation, ontological panics and arbitrary decisions (MacLure,
2006). It is a task, though, which builds creatively on a long-standing but
marginal tradition of our field, honours some of our ancestors, evolves from a
more realistic reading of the world, and above all, is a task that we have not fully
embraced yet.

206
 COMPARING IDENTITIES IN DISSIMILAR SPACES AND TIMES

REFERENCES

Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bryant, R. (2004). Imagining the modern: The cultures of nationalism in Cyprus. London: I.B. Tauris.
Carney, S. (2010). Reading the global: Comparative education at the end of an era. In M. Larsen (Ed.),
New thinking in comparative education: Honouring Robert Cowen (pp. 125–142). Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Colley, L. (2003). Britons: Forging the nation 1707–1837. London: Pimlico.
Cowen, R. (2002). Moments of time: A comparative note. History of Education, 31(5), 413–424.
Cowen, R. (2009). Then and now: Unit ideas and comparative education. In R. Cowen and A. Kazamias
(Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 1277–1294). Dordrecht: Springer.
Crick, B. (1991). The English and the British. In B. Crick (Ed.), National identities: The constitution of
the United Kingdom (pp. 90–104). Oxford: Blackwell.
De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. & Bamberg, M. (Eds.). (2006). Discourse and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
Firth, C. (1949). The growth of British democracy (Book four. History second series). London: Ginn &
Company.
Georgiades, K. (1978). History of Cyprus (2nd ed.). Nicosia: Zavalli.
Given, M. (1997). Star of the Parthenon, Cypriot mélange: Education and representation in colonial
Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Studies, 7(1), 59–82.
Jones, E. (2003). The English nation: The great myth. London: Sutton.
Kearney, H. (1991). Four nations or one? In B. Crick (Ed.), National identities: The constitution of the
United Kingdom (pp. 1–6). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kitromilides, P. (1994). Enlightenment, nationalism, orthodoxy: Studies in the culture and political
thought of South-Eastern Europe. Hampshire: Variorum.
Klerides, E. (2009a). National identities on the move: Examples from the historical worlds of Greater
Britain and Hellenism. Comparative Education, 45(3), 435–452.
Klerides, E. (2009b). National cultural identities, discourse analysis and comparative education.
In R. Cowen & A. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education
(pp. 1225–1247). Dordrecht: Springer.
Koliopoulos, J. & Veremis, T. (2004). Greece: The modern sequel. London: Hurst and Company.
Kumar, K. (2003). The making of English national identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langlands, R. (1999). Britishness or Englishness? The historical problem of national identity in Britain.
Nations and Nationalism, 5(1), 53–69.
Leontiou, N. & Ioannides, P. (Eds.). (1980). History of Cyprus: From the stone age to the age of
Christianity. Nicosia: Printko.
Loizides, N. (2007). Ethnic nationalism and adaptation in Cyprus. International Studies Perspectives, 8,
172–189.
MacDougall, H.A. (1982). Racial myth in English history: Trojans, Teutons, and Anglo-Saxons.
Montreal: University Press of New England.
MacLure, M. (2006). The bone in the throat: Some uncertain thoughts on baroque method. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 729–745.
Mavratsas, C. (1998). Facets of Greek nationalism in Cyprus: Ideological contest and the social
construction of the Greek Cypriot identity, 1974–1996. Athens: Katarti.
Pantelidou, A. & Chatzikosti, K. (1991). History of Cyprus: Byzantine period. Nicosia: Ministry of
Education and Culture.
Pantelidou, A., Chatzikosti, K. & Christou, I. (1990). History of Cyprus: From the Neolithic to the
Roman period. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Pantelidou, A., Chatzikosti, K. & Savvidou, C. (1992). History of Cyprus: Medieval and modern
period. Nicosia: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Pantelidou, A., Protopapa, K. & Yiallourides, S. (1994). History of Cyprus. Nicosia: Ministry of
Education and Culture.

207
E. KLERIDES

Papadakis, Y. (1993). Perceptions of history and collective identity: A study of contemporary Greek
Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot nationalism. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Cambridge, Cambridge.
Papadakis, Y. (1998). Greek Cypriot narratives of history and collective identity: Nationalism as a
contested process. American Ethnologist, 25(2), 149–165.
Peristianis, N. (2006). Cypriot nationalism, dual identity, and politics. In Y. Papadakis, N. Peristianis &
G. Welz (Eds.), Divided Cyprus: Modernity, history, and an island in conflict (pp. 100–120).
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Polydorou, A. (1978). History of Cyprus. Nicosia: Printko.
Schissler, H. & Soysal, Y. (Eds.). (2005). The nation, Europe and the world: Textbooks and curricula in
transition. Oxford: Berghahn.
Strong, C. (1931). Days of democracy: Britain in Europe, 1789-present day. London: University of
London Press.
Sultana, R. (2007). Looking back before moving forward: Building on 15 years of comparative
educational research in the Mediterranean. In C. Borg, P. Mayo & R. Sultana (Eds.), Mediterranean
studies in comparative education (pp. 9–25). Msida: University of Malta.
Vickers, E. & Jones, A. (Eds.). (2005). History education and national identity in East Asia. London:
Routledge.
Warner, G. (1899). A brief survey of British history (Rev. edn.). London: Blackie & Son.
Wellings, B. (2002). Empire-nation: National and imperial discourses in England. Nations and
Nationalism, 8(1), 95–109.
Williams, S.A. & Williams, R. C. (1949). The four freedom histories or the people we are: A history for
boys and girls (Vols. I & III). London: George G. Harrap & Co.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national
identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Young, T. (1926). Our nation’s history. Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd.
Zürcher, E. (2004). Turkey: A modern history. London: I.B. Tauris.

Eleftherios Klerides
Department of Education
University of Cyprus

208
 JASON BEECH AND ANA BRAVO-MORENO

12. NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL

SETTINGS
“Latinos” in Madrid and Buenos Aires1

Both Buenos Aires and Madrid have experienced significant changes in the profile
of migration trajectories. The growth and visibility of ethnic and cultural plurality
in two cities that had been considered as having certain cultural and ethnic
homogeneity has altered imagined homogenised identities, socio-economic
affiliations, and has placed political and educational systems under tremendous
strain.
The aim of this chapter is to analyse and compare school experiences of Latin
American immigrants in the cities of Buenos Aires and Madrid in order to
understand the ways in which ethnic and cultural tensions manifested in schools.
We suggest that ethnic tensions and the ways in which Latin American migrants
are ‘othered’ in schools in Buenos Aires and Madrid are rooted in historical
relations between different groups that were defined through the colonial
experience of the Spanish in Latin America. Thus, the Spanish imperial past and
the discursive construction of Buenos Aires as a European enclave in South
America are fundamental to grasping current reactions to Latin American
immigration in these cities.
The chapter is divided into three sections. The first part will briefly examine the
overall situation of immigrants in Buenos Aires and in Madrid through an analysis
of demographic data, legislation on immigration, and the education policies that
relate to immigrant students. Based on the notion of ‘colonial difference’ the
second section will discuss the specific colonial experience of Latin America, and
how ethnic differences between Europeans, Creoles, and indigenous populations
were constructed. The third section will capture the perspective of students and
how they perceive and evaluate their school experiences in their city of residence.
Dewey (1998) argued that experiences involve a transaction between objective
conditions and the active interpretations of individuals. Thus, we understand that
students constitute their own school experiences through their interactions with the
school environment that is itself, shaped by its context. Individuals learn something
from experience. What is learnt in one situation becomes an instrument for
interpreting and enacting future situations. Therefore, it will be argued that school
experiences have a fundamental influence in the processes of constructing and
negotiating identities.

L. Wikander, C. Gustafsson and U. Riis (Eds.), Enlightenment, Creativity and Education:

Polities, Politics, Performances, 209–230.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

The chapter is based on a qualitative study that was conducted in seven state high
schools (four in Madrid and three in Buenos Aires). It analyses the ways in which
students (aged 14 to 18) who migrated to Madrid and Buenos Aires perceive their
experiences in their school settings. The data was generated by in-depth
interviews with school students, teachers, head-teachers, directors of studies and
counsellors. The sample – students and teachers – was not chosen to represent
some part of the larger world. It offers, instead, an opportunity to glimpse the
complicated character, organisation and logic of certain socio-cultural contexts in
school settings. The open-ended interview was chosen as a method of data
collection because it allows for an understanding of how individuals interpret
events in their lives. Respondents’ approaches give prominence to human agency
and personal associations of meanings. Thus, it is the subjectivity of open-ended
interviews, their rootedness in time, place, language and personal experience, on
which this study rests. Respondents’ stories reveal insights about socio-cultural
settings and historical circumstances in Spain and Argentina that speak ‘by
themselves’ through students’ and teachers’ accounts. Respondents’ narratives are
not merely a way of telling their stories but a means through which identities are
constructed.

MIGRATION TRAJECTORIES IN BUENOS AIRES

In Argentina, during the 19th century, the promotion of European immigration was
used as one of the main strategies to ‘civilise’ and ‘modernise’ the newborn nation.
European immigrants were seen as ‘civilising’ agents that would bring with them
their culture, order and attitude towards work, serving as a model for the Argentine
population.
Between 1880 and 1930 massive immigration changed the social structure of
Argentina. In 1869 there were 1.8 million inhabitants in the country. By 1914 the
population was 7.8 million. The population of the city of Buenos Aires alone went
from 180,000 to 1.5 million in that same period. In 1895, two out of three
inhabitants of the city were counted as immigrants, and by 1914, when many of
these immigrants had given birth in Argentina, still 30% of the total population
could be counted as foreign-born; 28% from Europe and 2% from other American
countries (INDEC, 2009). The majority of newcomers were from Italy – first
arriving from the north, later from the south – from Spain and, to a lesser extent,
from France (Romero, 2001). Argentina has been described as a country ‘of’
immigrants (not a country ‘with’ immigrants) (Oteiza & Novick, 2000).
The educational system was designed with the aim of homogenising the
population under the new ‘Argentine culture’ that would guarantee political
stability and legitimise the power of the central state. The national state (and to a
certain extent, provincial states) assumed total responsibility for schooling, with a
firm control over primary education. Each and every school in Argentina had to
function in exactly the same way; offering the same content, at the same time, with
the same methods, through the use of uniform didactic materials (Gvirtz, Beech &
Oria, 2008). It was thought that similar school experiences offered to all students

210
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

would guarantee a certain degree of cultural homogeneity and the construction of a

national identity. Also, at the time, the French Republican ethos of equality had a
strong influence on the educational system, reinforcing the notion that all students
had to receive exactly the same education.
The Argentine elite had quite an ambiguous position in regards to the culture
that should be transmitted in schools: they promoted a ‘European way of life’, but
at the same time, they struggled against the perpetuation of the way of life of each
particular foreign community (Tedesco, 1986). What was clear was that indigenous
cultures were excluded from narratives that were promoted in schools and other
institutions in constructing and developing the national identity. In this way,
Argentina, and especially Buenos Aires, was constructed discursively as a
European enclave in South America. The ‘virtues’ of European immigration have
been idealised in Argentina and thus, an image of superiority was constructed,
differentiating Argentina from other Latin American countries.
Since the second half of the 20th century the profile of immigration in
Argentina has changed substantially. A marked decrease of European immigration
implied a growth in relative terms of migrants from neighbouring countries and
Peru, especially in the city of Buenos Aires.
In the 1990s South American immigrants started to become more visible in
public discourse and in the media. Economic growth in Argentina and a favourable
exchange rate attracted regional migrants, especially from Peru, Bolivia and
Paraguay. In addition, migrants from these countries that had traditionally settled
in areas close to the borders, started to move into the big cities, especially to
Buenos Aires (Ceva, 2006). As social networks expanded in the metropolitan area,
costs of migrating to Buenos Aires reduced, and a process of territorial segregation
started in which migrants tended to settle in certain areas that became Bolivian,
Paraguayan or Peruvian enclaves (Sassone & Mera, 2007). This process of
segregation also included a cultural dimension: neighbourhoods were nicknamed
(such as the Bolivian ‘Barrio Charrua’), religious, national and ethnic celebrations
came to be organised, and newspapers, radios and restaurants that cater to specific
communities launched (Ibid.). This contributed to the visibility of immigrant
communities in the city.
As a result of the growth of ethnic plurality in a city that defined itself as
‘European’, immigration started receiving much attention in the media and in public
and political debates. Overall, there were two types of reactions and positions in the
debate. On the one hand, based on notions such as ‘human rights’, ‘respect for
diversity’ and ‘the brotherhood of Latin Americans’, one position advocated for the
recognition of immigrants. On the other hand, xenophobic and racist discourses, and
a declared sensation that Argentina was being invaded by foreigners emerged.
The first position was reflected in the passing of a new migration law in 2004
(Argentina, 2004) that defined a new political approach to immigration, promoting
the social and economic integration of immigrants. This law grants immigrants and
their families equal access to social services such as education, health, justice,
work, and social security. In education, all foreigners, regardless of their legal
status, are granted the right to enrol in public and private institutions at all levels,

211
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

under the same conditions as nationals. It is the responsibility of educational

authorities to guide and give advice to migrants of irregular status.
On the other hand, racist and xenophobic discourses blamed immigrants from
other South American countries for the high unemployment rates (especially after
the economy stagnated in the mid-1990s), the ‘overload’ of public services (health
and education), and the rise in criminality (Aruj, Novick & Oteiza, 2002). This type
of view, combined with the political and economic collapse of 2001, a huge
increase in poverty rates and the widening of the gap between the income of rich
and poor (Gasparini & Cruces, 2008), was expressed through the public opinion
phrase: “We are now really Latin Americans”. There was a strong feeling that the
distinctive characteristics of Argentina in relation to other Latin American countries
(a strong middle class, low poverty rates and the ‘European flavour’) were gone.
According to official data from 2006, 30,816 foreign students were enrolled in
pre-school, primary and secondary education in Buenos Aires2 – where 87% were
counted as being students from neighbouring countries, and Peru. The distribution
by nationality within this group shows that 42% came from Bolivia, 26% from
Paraguay, 24% from Peru, 4% from Uruguay, 3% from Brazil and 1% from Chile.
The Argentine educational system has suffered a progressive de facto school
segregation based on social class (Neufeld & Thisted, 1999; Veleda, 2009). While
state schools mainly cater to the most economically disadvantaged sectors of the
population, private enrolments provide for families with the highest incomes
(Narodowski & Nores, 2002). Overall, immigrant students tend to be enrolled in
state schools (80%); far above the 53.5% of the overall student population
attending state schools in Buenos Aires. It is possible to see how socio-economic
status relates to the national origin of migrants and the type of education they
receive. While Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru have provided mostly unqualified
labour to Argentina, Uruguayan and Brazilian immigrants tend to work in more
qualified jobs (Ceva, 2006).3 Interestingly, this difference is reflected in
public/private enrolments (although it is not so clear in the case of Uruguay): the
percentage of enrolments in public schools is of 95% for Bolivians, 86% for
Paraguayans, 85% for Peruvians, 71% for Uruguayans and 51% for Brazilians
(Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, 2006).
However, segmentation by social class happens even within the public sector.
Some schools have been labelled as ‘stigmatised schools’, generally associated
with a low-quality education, and thus, are avoided mainly by the middle classes
(Neufeld & Thisted, 1999). As in the case of Madrid, Argentine parents do not
want their children to go to schools where there is a significant presence of
immigrant students, thus perpetuating segregation in certain schools. Furthermore,
foreign-born students (especially Paraguayans, Peruvians and Bolivians) tend to
live and go to school in the southern part of the city, where the highest levels of
poverty and dropout rates have been recorded. Besides poverty, other issues such
as family support and language difficulties might play a role in differentiating the
academic performance of immigrant students.
In Argentina (and in Buenos Aires) the institutional response to the challenges
posed by immigrant students has been stated in Argentina’s migratory policy, which

212
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

grants immigrants access to institutions, regardless of their legal status, and gives
foreign-born students the possibility of applying for scholarships that help the
economically disadvantaged. No special pedagogic or institutional devices have
been designed to attend to the specific needs of immigrant students in schools. This
weak response to the needs of immigrant students can be explained by, at least,
three factors. Firstly, the challenge of immigrant education is very visible in certain
schools where immigrant students tend to cluster, but it has not yet been considered
a general challenge by the central authorities. Secondly, the huge increase in
poverty in the last four decades in Argentina has placed the problem of
redistribution at the centre of educational debates, while issues linked to cultural
recognition have received very little attention. Finally, the Republican ethos of
equality still emanates very strongly from legislators, educational authorities, and
teachers. From this point of view, the fairest way to deal with differences is to treat
everybody in the same way, disregarding the need for group identity politics.

MIGRATION TRAJECTORIES IN MADRID

In the case of Spain, in the 20th century, around six million Spaniards emigrated;
until the 1930s, 80% left for the Americas and from the 1950s to the mid-1970s,
75% emigrated to northern Europe. At the end of the 20th century, Spain evolved
from its traditional role as a sending country and, increasingly, as a transit country
for migrants heading north, Spain became a receiving country for foreign workers,
mostly from Latin America, Northern Africa, and the European Union (mainly
from Britain, Germany, and Romania4). Today immigration of Third Country
Nationals5 (TCN) in Spain has become one of the most contested issues in the
media and the second most important ‘national’ issue for Spaniards, after
unemployment, due to the sharp increase in the number of immigrants. It was not
until the late-1990s that large-scale immigration began. During the past 10 years,
the number of immigrants has increased nine-fold. According to data published by
the Spanish National Statistics Institute (INE, 2008), of Spain’s 46 million
inhabitants, nearly 11% registered as foreign-born. At present the number of
immigrants who are registered in Madrid has descended for the second consecutive
year due to the number of naturalizations and the migrants that have returned to
their country of origin. On the 1st of January 2012 there were 1.047.174 foreigners
living in Madrid, 56.296 less than in 2011. Therefore the foreign population
represented 15,98% of the population in Madrid and 12,2% of the total population
in Spain. (Observatorio de Inmigración, 2012).
The Spanish economic boom of the last decade was partly generated by cheap
labour from South America, North and Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe
(Oliver, 2006). In fact, hundreds of thousands of low-paid immigrants fuelled three
of Spain’s most important industries: agriculture, construction and services – the
latter being populated by a fleet of immigrant women working as cleaners, nannies
and care-givers to the elderly; a state of affairs that feeds the underground
economy. On the other hand, with a birth rate of 0.7 children per woman, Spain has
one of the lowest birthrates in the world, and studies show that to keep the Spanish

213
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

pension system from bankrupting, immigrants will have to make-up 20% of its
population by 2030 (Sebastián, 2006).
Thus, the country’s constantly changing demands for different kinds of labour
can only be met through immigration. Yet, the Spanish government proposed that
the European Union dedicate a substantial part of its 2007–2013 frontier control
budget to its southern border, and that it follows the steps of the three common
migration policy responses, as implemented by the European Union: prevention,
detention and deportation. In the meantime, the increase in immigrant population,
notwithstanding these proposals over the past ten years, begs the question of how
the Spanish educational system has accommodated its new students.
The total number of foreign students was 743,696 (9.7%) in the academic year
2008–2009, while in the case of Madrid, 13.8% was recorded, and overall, 30% of
immigrant students had failed and did not finish compulsory secondary education
(ESO).6 Of those who stayed in school, only one-in-fifty continued to post-
compulsory secondary education (2 years) or intermediate vocational training7;
thus, only 33% of immigrant youths aged 16 to 18 years old were counted as
enrolled in school, compared to 83.6% of Spaniards. These students have also
demonstrated a high level of absenteeism (PISA, 2005).
The next tables show the evolution of foreign students in compulsory education
and the number of students attending different levels of education in Spain:

Evolution of the distribution of foreign students enrolled in primary and secondary

education in Spain according to geographical areas of origin (1998–2009)8

1998/99 2000/01 2002/03 2004/05 2006/07 2008/09

EU % 29.19 23.62 15.13 13.56 12.75 25.12
Rest of Europe % 5.61 6.83 9.98 12.47 15.45 3.69
Africa % 30.05 27.39 19.61 19.17 19.52 20.53
Americas % 26.44 34.75 49.62 49.69 47.17 45.27
Asia % 8.49 7.21 4.82 4.91 4.82 5.23
TOTAL
80,587 141,916 309,058 460,518 609,611 743,696
(foreign students)

Distribution of immigrant students attending different levels of education in Spain (school

year 2008–2009)9

Immigrant
Total students %
students
Day care & kindergarten 1,784,629 124,211 6.96
Compulsory primary school
2,659,424 305,520 11.49
(aged 3–12)
Compulsory secondary education
1,810,298 213,530 11.80
(aged 12–16)
Post-compulsory secondary education
586,541 32,085 5.47
leading to university (aged 16–18)
Vocational training (aged 16–18) 472,982 31,792 6.72
No secondary education certificate 53,729 8,405 15.64

214
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

In the case of Madrid, state schools enrolled 85.2%, while fully-subsidised private
schools and purely private schools enrolled 17.8% of migrant students (Ministerio
de Educación, 2009).10

Main nationalities of students enrolled in primary and secondary schools in Madrid (school
year 2008–2009)11

Percentage of
Country of origin Students
TCN students
Ecuador 31,517 22.8
Romania 18,235 13.2
Morocco 14,719 10.6
Colombia 10,957 7.9
Peru 8,479 6.1
Bolivia 6,627 4.8
Dominican Republic 5,270 3.8
China 5,061 3.7
Argentina 3,048 2.2
Bulgaria 2,891 2.1

The conservative government of Madrid (governed by the Popular Party – PP – in

contrast to the government of Spain, which is led by the Socialist Party of
Workers, PSOE) preferred to increase public funds to subsidise private Catholic
schools, while demand for state schools decreased, partly due to the presence of
immigrant children. In fact, only one-in-five immigrant student is registered in
fully-subsidised private Catholic school (Ombudsman, 2003). This controversial
situation is in opposition with some of the basic principles for schools that are
embedded in Spanish legislation. The LODE Act of 1985 established that both
state education and private education financed by the state would have the same
criteria regarding the admission of pupils. Many middle-class parents remove their
children from state schools because it is symbolic of a lower social status (Jacott &
Maldonado, 2004), and because they prefer their children not to mix with
immigrants.
Thus, immigrants may even constitute the majority of the school population in
certain state schools. Spain’s education system has undergone significant changes
in the last 30 years. Nevertheless the challenge of immigrant education has not
been specifically addressed. The Constitutional Law of Quality of Education
(LOCE, 2002), only vaguely touched upon the issue of intercultural education,
simply stressing that the law would also benefit immigrant students (BOE, 2002).
More importantly, the law presented itself as being based “on the humanistic
values of our European cultural tradition”; a phrase which gives an indication of its
ideological orientation. None of the ‘values’ on the basis of which the new law was
formulated makes any reference to interculturalism or diversity as a crucial
component of education. Instead, individual effort, quality of education, rigorous
methods of assessment, social consideration for teachers and autonomy of the
institutions were the main points addressed. Additionally, the LOCE simply

215
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

offered vague guidelines as to how the regional administrations should deal with
immigrant education. Accordingly, the autonomous communities are reacting
differently in their education policies (Cachón Rodríguez, 2003).
In the case of Madrid, the institutional response to migrant students has been the
creation of the Compensatory Education Regional Plan, which started in 1999 and
includes the following measures: a) transitional classrooms which cater to
immigrant students whose mother tongue is not Spanish; b) educational
compensatory classrooms which are aimed at students between the ages of 14 and
16 who are at risk of leaving school due to family or social problems and who
might not otherwise obtain a secondary school diploma. These students must be
two years behind the norm for their age or they must have serious difficulties
adjusting to formal educational settings; c) mother tongue and culture programmes
(for Arabic and Portuguese only) in line with agreements between the Spanish
government and the governments of Morocco and Portugal; d) external
compensation services, outside the school timetable, which aim to develop socio-
educational spaces for co-operation with the local community in schools and
improve the educational process of students in disadvantaged situations.
Nevertheless, these measures of ‘inclusion’ fall within the framework of
compensatory education, which is aimed at compensating for a perceived deficit in
the student. This, however, is not compatible with intercultural education, as it
does not demand any change to mainstream educational institutions or society.
Bernstein (1970) was adamant that “education cannot compensate for society”. He
argued that it makes no sense to talk about offering compensatory education to
children “who in the first place, have as yet not been offered an adequate
educational environment” (Bernstein, 1971, p. 191).
Another important aspect is that variations in education spending within Spain
cause disparities in the level of provision. Indeed, public expenditure on education
(other than universities) in the two autonomous regions with the highest and the
lowest spending on education per student is as follows: annual expenditure per
student in Euros in the Basque Country is 4,800 (expenditure as a percentage of
GDP: 3.6) and in Andalucía, it is 2,400 (expenditure as a percentage of GDP: 3.2),
while the average annual expenditure per student in Euros in Spain is 3,100
(average expenditure as a percentage of GDP: 3.3) (Teese, R., Lamb, S. & Duru-
Bellat, M. 2007). Therefore, Spain needs adequate mechanisms to redistribute
resources so as to minimise regional inequalities of provision and to make sure that
minimum standards are met everywhere.
The most complete and reliable survey on the situation of immigrant students in
Spain was released in April 2003 by the Spanish Ombudsman in co-operation with
UNICEF. The main concern expressed in this report refers to the high level of
concentration of immigrant students in state schools, like those which are located
in disadvantaged environments that create spaces of exclusion. In fact, there is a
high concentration of immigrant children in state schools in Madrid and Barcelona.
It is very significant that 82% of immigrant students from Latin America, Africa,
Eastern Europe and Asia attend state schools. Since private Catholic schools are
fully subsidised by the state and/or autonomous regions it would be expected that

216
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

they would share the responsibility of educating immigrant students. However, this
is not the case due to the admission procedures which filter Spanish from foreign
students. Although the Spanish Constitution (Article 27) states that everyone has
the right to education and that compulsory education is free, this becomes
confusing in regards to fully-subsidised private Catholic schools, Centros
Concertados, since these impose fees concerning school uniforms, school
materials, travel, sports and miscellaneous activities that are not supposed to be
compulsory.
Nevertheless, parents must meet these payments if they want their children to
attend those schools. In fact, attendance in ‘private’ but fully-subsidised Catholic
schools is perceived by many low- and middle-class families as a positive symbol
of social status (Jacott & Maldonado, 2004). The ‘imposition’ of extra fees for
services deters access for immigrant families to that type of school, as they are
usually low-income earners. In addition, these schools may refuse entry to
immigrant children due to their qualifications from their country of origin. Indeed,
this is a way of guaranteeing that children of Spanish parents will not mix with
immigrant students. The problem of high concentrations of immigrants in state
schools in deprived areas is that these children are excluded; socio-economically
and educationally. Standards and density of housing, poverty rate and family
employment may all affect the well-being of children. Moreover, a very high
concentration of immigrant students in certain schools, which are often in
underprivileged neighbourhoods and have bad reputations, may result in having
higher dropout and expulsion rates (Collicelli, 2003).
Thus, this section has explored the general situation of immigrants in Buenos
Aires and in Madrid through an analysis of demographic data, legislation on
immigration and the education policies that relate to immigrant students. The next
section will discuss the specific colonial experience of Latin America, and how
ethnic differences between Europeans, Creoles, and indigenous populations were
constructed based on the notion of ‘colonial difference’.

SPANISH COLONIALITY IN LATIN AMERICA

This section will analyse the specific configuration of colonial power in the Spanish
colonies in America in order to approach the ways in which ethnic differences
between Europeans, Creoles and Indigenous and African peoples were constructed
in Iberoamerica. It will be argued that the powerful effects of the classification of
populations that was essential for Spanish and European domination in the
Americas continues to be relevant, affecting subjectivities, imagination and
identities on both sides of the Atlantic. Furthermore, the discussion presented in this
section will be used in the next part to illustrate how ethnic classifications are
expressed nowadays in power relations in schools in Madrid and Buenos Aires,
which have a strong presence of Latin American immigrants. After all, as Rizvi
noted, current global movements of capital, people and ideas cannot be abstracted
from colonial histories, since current patterns of global flows emerge “out of a
historical architecture that is already in place” (2009, p. 104).

217
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

Quijano (2008) argued that the model of colonial domination imposed from Europe
to America, and later, to other parts of the world based its symbolic power on the
social classification of populations around the idea of race:
So the conquered and dominated peoples were situated in a natural position
of inferiority, and as a result, their phenotypic traits as well as their cultural
features were likewise considered inferior. In this way, race became the
fundamental criterion for the distribution of the world population into ranks,
places, and roles in the new society’s structure of power (p. 183).
This classification was rendered as supposedly based on biological structure and,
thus, it was natural for some to be in an inferior position. The colour of the skin
was fundamental in the constitution of social hierarchies and roles and strongly
linked to the division of labour in which ‘whiteness’ was directly associated with
wages and the possibility of occupying higher positions in the social structure
(Ibid., p. 185).
However, the ways in which the strategy of social classification was put into
practice was not homogenous. Different imperial powers used different approaches
in specific places and in specific moments. The concept of “colonial difference”
(Mignolo, 2008a) questions generalised interpretations of colonialism and
postcolonialism that reduce very complex and diverse cultural and political
practices to binary categories – such as coloniser and colonised, centre and
periphery – that dissolve internal differences and lead “to an inevitable
homogenization of entirely different phenomena” (Chanady, 2008, p. 417). In this
chapter we use the term colonial difference “to emphasize the specificity of Latin
America’s colonial history, that is, its particular historical, political, social, and
cultural modes of articulation within the world-system of colonial domination
throughout the centuries” (Moraña, Dussel & Jáuregui, 2008, p. 18).
Furthermore, given the specificities of the Spanish-Latin American colonial
experience, the use of postcolonial theories, mostly developed from Asian and
African perspectives in understanding the Latin American situation is problematic
(Mignolo, 2008b; Quijano, 2008). One of the problems with the use of postcolonial
theories and applying them to Latin America is that the rupture between the
colonial system and independence was quite weak. Creole oligarchies replaced the
Spanish and the Portuguese authorities, but the overall colonial social structure
continued; keeping indigenous peoples and epistemologies in subaltern and
marginal positions (Dussel, 2008). As Mignolo explained:
The singularity of the Americas, seen from the perspective of coloniality,
also resides in its being the space where a population of Creoles of European
descent gained independence from the imperial metropolis, and reproduced
the logic of coloniality in the new independent governments in both the
North and the South against the Indigenous and Afro populations. Thus, the
Creole population of European descent became, in South America and the
Caribbean, the master while remaining the slave with respect to Western
Europe and the US (2008b, p. 47).

218
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

Thus, the colonial logic did not finish with independence. The distinction between
Europeans, Creoles, Indigenous and Afro American populations defined the social
structure of the nation states that were created in the 19th century.
Since the beginning of the process of colonisation in the Americas the ‘lower
races’ were associated with non-paid labour. Indigenous peoples were given the
status of unpaid serfs. Differently from the feudal system in Europe, serfs were not
provided protection from a feudal lord, nor did they receive any land to cultivate
(Quijano, 2008). American Indigenous peoples were defined as barely human, as
peoples without history (Mignolo, 2008) and as a tabula rasa on which Christianity
should be inscribed. Africans were further subjugated to slavery. Possibilities for
mestizos (born of Spanish men and Indigenous women) to participate in the
activities of Europeans or Creoles depended very much on their skin colour
(Quijano, 2008).
Americans of European descent – Creoles – occupied dominant positions
with respect to the ‘lower races’, but were subordinated to Europeans. This
social stratum, its unstable identity and its access to power after independence
were essential to the Latin American colonial experience. Creoles had a quite
ambivalent position towards Spaniards. Ambivalence does seem to characterizes
the simultaneous loyalties and disavowals of an ontologically unstable Creole
subject –, one who moves between a constant sense of inferiority within the
system of political representation – and equally present self-proclamations
about Creole cultural and biological superiority over the Spaniards (Mazzoti,
2008).
Creoles had the consciousness of not being European, but it was clear that their
loyalties were not towards Indigenous and Black populations. Once the wars of
independence were over, the dominant elites embraced the dream of modernisation
and European civilisation. They were cut-off from the past; they rejected Spanish
and American identities and found in French political ideas inspiration for the
organisation of the state and the nation (Mignolo, 2008b). These national elites
acted as a class of mediators controlling the links of Latin American countries with
the world-system. They also acted as translators of Western modern knowledge
and institutions that were rendered as the only possible option (Mignolo, 2008a)
for the advancement of national projects. These Creole groups were often
“involved in ‘neocolonial pacts’ with international powers (mostly England,
France, and the United States), which strengthened economic and political
dependency and deepened inequality in Latin American societies” (Moraña et al.,
2008, p. 9).
The concept of ‘coloniality’ refers to the global hegemonic power that was
imposed on the Americas since the Conquista, which also continued throughout
Latin American history (Castro-Gomez, 2008; Moraña, et al., 2008; Quijano,
2008). One of the main characteristics of the coloniality of power is that it not only
included domination by force, but it was also strongly based on the repression of
indigenous cultures and the simultaneous positioning of Western knowledge as
superior and as the only valuable option to apprehend the world. Repression and
seduction functioned as two sides of the same coin.

219
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

European culture became a seduction; it gave access to power. After all,

besides repression, seduction is the main instrument of all power. Cultural
Europeization turned into an aspiration. It was a means of participating in
colonial power (Quijano, 2008, p. 439).
The aspiration to “Cultural Europeization” was shared both by dominated and
dominators. As Castro-Gomez noted, the “imaginary of whiteness” (2008, p. 282)
was internalised as an aspiration in the subjectivity of all social actors in colonial
society. But whiteness was not so much a question of skin colour, but rather a
certain disposition of the mind, forms of dress and customs that represented
“cultural signs of distinction” and civilisation (Ibid.). Thus, the classification of
populations using the concept of race was (and still is) the epistemic base of the
coloniality of power.
This section has briefly discussed how the classification of populations into
Europeans, Creoles, Indigenous and African-Americans was fundamental in the
coloniality of power in the Americas. These differences were not only based on
structural economic and political subordination of the ‘lower races’, but they were
also strongly based on symbolic aspirations to whiteness and ‘European
superiority’. The next section will illustrate how these differences are still
important to understanding power relations, identities and the aspirations of Latin
American migrants and autochthonous populations in schools in Madrid and in
Buenos Aires.

SCHOOL EXPERIENCES AND ETHNIC TENSIONS IN MADRID

AND IN BUENOS AIRES

This section analyses the voices of school professionals and immigrant students by
presenting some examples of how the ethnic classifications that originate in the
coloniality of power are still present in social interactions in schools in Madrid and
in Buenos Aires. Although there are some differences in the ways in which these
issues arose in each of our research settings, given space constrains, we have
decided to stress similarities in the ways in which ethnic tensions manifested in
schools in both cities. We will start by presenting the voices of educators in
schools, emphasising nostalgic views about previous students, discrimination,
stereotypes and the reinforcement of segregation. Then we will turn to students’
narratives about similar issues and their overall school experiences. Finally we will
reflect upon pedagogic approaches to immigrant students as a site of interaction
between educators and students.
Both in Buenos Aires and in Madrid many teachers and principals who were
interviewed expressed nostalgic views about their previous students, and some sort
of disdain towards the young people currently enrolled in their classes and schools.
For example, in the case of Buenos Aires, Vanina, a head teacher, noted with pride
that her school had traditionally been labelled as the Belgrano Schule12 because it
catered to the Jewish community in Argentina. She told us about many “important
people” (doctors, lawyers, legislators) that had graduated from her school. As we
suggested that those were also immigrant families, she reacted by saying: “No, no,

220
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

that was something else”. Implicit was the notion that the school’s current students
had no chance of becoming “important people” – that they had some kind of
deficit.
Similarly, in Madrid, Ernesto, an assistant head teacher, commented on the
difference he noticed amongst various waves of immigrant students and foreign
students in Spain. He has 25 years experience in education and works in a high
school of 300 students, 20% of them consisting of immigrants:
In our schools we call immigrants those who are poor foreign students.
Better-off foreigners are called overseas students, they come from the EU,
the US or Canada. There are lots of foreign students in Spain. But we call
immigrants the ones who are poor, whose parents have to work in menial
jobs. I remember when Argentina and Chile were dictatorships, they used to
migrate here but they were psychiatrists, dentists, with a high educational
background and this influenced their children. These people have nothing to
do with the kind of immigration we get today….
Thus, in the narratives of these educators, the classification of different types of
populations is very influential. Both comments illustrate nostalgic views about
previous students that were supposedly stronger, academically. But the difference
between older and new students is not only expressed in academic terms. They also
reflect a view about a certain disposition of the mind, forms of dress and customs
that represent cultural signs of distinction and civilisation associated with colonial
classifications. In Buenos Aires, from the point of view of Vanina, the Jewish
community carried these signs of distinction, while her current Bolivian,
Paraguayan and Peruvian students did not, and consequently, they were inferior
and would remain inferior, given the impossibility of her thinking that they could
become “important people”.
In the case of Ernesto, he offered a double classification that establishes a
clear hierarchy with Europeans and North Americans above Argentine and
Chilean professionals, who still rank higher than poorer migrants. Argentina,
Chile and Uruguay (what is known as the Southern Cone) are the countries in
Latin America with the strongest European immigration, and where
consequently, Creole groups of European descent are proportionally higher.
Furthermore, given that the immigrants Ernesto referred to, from the Southern
Cone, were professionals escaping dictatorial repression in their countries and
not low-waged workers, they would have had the type of dispositions associated
with whiteness. The reproduction of the colonial hierarchical classification is
quite clear.
Stereotypes and discrimination by educators in relation to Latin American
students were also present in the interviews, but with important differences: while
participating students from Buenos Aires unanimously manifested that they had
not suffered from discrimination from educators in schools, that was not the case in
Madrid. Nevertheless, educators in Buenos Aires did have discriminatory views
about their current students, but apparently, they took special care not to express
their personal feelings in front of them.

221
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

In Buenos Aires, educators referred to physical disposition as a distinctive

characteristic of Bolivians and Peruvians: “It manifests in their whole body,
Bolivians and Peruvians always walk slowly and silently, all of them together”.
The intellectual capacity of immigrants was put into doubt. Their previous
schooling experiences, their socio-economic background and culture were used to
explain this alleged deficit. Furthermore, nationality, ethnicity and socio-economic
status were muddled-up in the discourse of teachers as they complained about their
students: “The colour of the skin is more important than nationality. There are kids
here that come from the [Argentine] provinces of the north that look very similar to
Bolivians, they have the same physiognomy… in general you can see that those
with [academic] problems are the ones with dark skin”.
Mariela, a student aged 17, originally from Chile, had arrived in Madrid when
she was nine years old. At the time of the interview, she was studying her last year
of compulsory secondary school. She attended a compensatory class because she
was one year behind and commented on her teacher’s attitudes towards South
Americans: “My teacher says things like ‘I hate South American accents, there are
South Americans whose physical features resemble those of monkeys”. Her sister,
Lucía, one year older, who attended the same compensatory class, remarked that
the same teacher “calls us sudacas13 and our Spanish classmates say that we are
inferior to Spaniards, that we are nothing. This happens regularly, and I feel very
angry and sad when I am treated like that”.
As has been mentioned, spatial and school segregation are big problems in the
education of immigrant students in Buenos Aires and Madrid. The spatial
distribution of immigrant students in the City of Buenos Aires shows that foreign-
born students, and especially Paraguayans, Peruvians and Bolivians, tend to
concentrate in the Southern part of the city, where the highest levels of poverty can
be found. These districts also have the highest dropout rates, and the worst overall
academic performance. Even within these districts, immigrant students tend to
gather in certain schools. One of the head teachers interviewed for this study
explained how this happened:
In our case, since the population, mostly Bolivians and Peruvians and a few
Paraguayans, started to come to this school – since they chose this school for
their education – the number of Argentine students fell.
Thus, Argentine parents do not want their children to go to a school where there is
a significant presence of immigrant students and this perpetuates and reinforces the
concentration of migrant children in certain schools. In this way, many migrant
children (and the Argentine children of immigrants) attend schools in which they
form the majority of the school population.
A similar process was described in Madrid where head teachers interviewed for
this study stated that Spanish parents did not want their children to attend schools
where there is any significant presence of immigrant students because they believe
their children will learn less in such schools. Some teachers also revealed that they
did not want their own children or grandchildren to attend state schools because
they shared the same view. Lisa, a high school principal interviewed for this study

222
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

has 30 years’ experience in education and leads a school in Madrid that has a long
history in education. Its Jesuit14 foundation dates from the 16th century. Today,
this high school teaches 800 students, 40% of them immigrants and Lisa
complained about the lack of selection process of students:
This high school has to admit all the pupils from primary schools that are
assigned to it. The privately-run schools funded by the state (Centros
Concertados) don’t get assigned any students; they are free to select their
own students. Years ago this high school was very selective, only elite
students were chosen. However ten years ago the policy changed and now we
are forced to take anybody. For us, teachers, this situation has no advantages,
it means much more work.
Similarly, in Buenos Aires, educators complained about how easy it is for foreign
students to enrol:
A person that crosses the border from Bolivia to Argentina, for example,
enjoys public healthcare and education unlike in their own countries.
Children come to our state schools without any restriction; the government
says that we should enrol those children even if they don’t have a national
identity card. I don’t agree with this, I think everybody should have a
national identity card. I can have a Bolivian kid with a Bolivian passport but
when he comes to school, what do I do? I’ve got the problem.
Thus, educators in both cities see with some preoccupation how their schools
become schools of immigrants that are then avoided by autochthonous students.
Therefore, nostalgic views, stereotypes, discrimination and complaints about the
legal frameworks that do not allow schools to distribute immigrant students fairly
amongst all schools are strongly based on social classification originated in the
colonial system.
Latino students at the educational centres in Madrid were aware that most low-
track classes were composed of TNC immigrants – that is, Latino, Moroccan, other
African students or Chinese – whereas high-track classes were composed of
primarily Spanish students. Some adolescents explained that “students segregate
themselves based on how they are treated. Students made strong links between the
racial composition of the different academic programmes and the racial stigma
associated with each”. Latino students clearly articulated how the racial and ethnic
divisions within each programme reflected the racial hierarchy present in the larger
society.
A case in point is Max, 16 years of age; he arrived in Madrid when he was six,
from Quito (Ecuador), with his mother – his father united with them later. His
father is an architect and his mother works as a cleaner, although she studied up
to secondary school in Ecuador. His parents later divorced due to domestic
violence perpetrated by his father against his mother. The stress caused by this
situation triggered Max’s anorexia and he was in the hospital for some time. Max
explained his life at school and his situation at home, as it was at the time of the
interview:

223
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

When I was 6 I arrived in Madrid and I remember people asking me why I

had to come to this country (Spain). I kept silent; I didn’t know what to say.
When I attended my previous school, there were lots of Latinos and lots of
troubles. Police used to be outside the school writing down our names. They
knew we were Latinos because of our looks and the way we dressed with
baggy clothes. The police thought that anyone who dressed like that meant
trouble. I felt singled-out. Why am I under suspicion for wearing baggy
clothes? In fact, my school called my mother asking whether I belonged to a
gang.
Why do you think gangs are formed? Because they do not have a good
atmosphere at home, they lack their families’ support; there isn’t a father or a
mother figure. Here Latinos work as cleaners or in the building sector; those
jobs keep them busy all the time. The parents don’t know what their children
are doing; they go out into the streets and look for their own way of life. At a
later stage in the interview Max described his situation at home: My mother
threw me out of the house a week ago because I didn’t eat my dinner the
other day. I was so tired that I forgot. She thought I was falling again into
anorexia. Now I live at my brother’s. I have looked after myself since we
arrived in Madrid because my parents were working all the time. I used to do
the shopping and cook at home, that’s why I want to work as soon as
possible. I would love to study a degree in engineering but I need the money,
I don’t want to ask my mom for it. Now I work as a part-time cleaner for my
mom’s friends, so that I can buy my own clothes.
Max exemplifies the economic difficulties that many immigrants suffer and how
they confront them: working long hours. As a result, older children need to look
after their younger siblings, or they may have to cook their own meals, or do the
shopping. In many cases, nobody is home to welcome or help adolescents with
their homework when arrive from school. Economic necessity shapes their
educational future and the choices they make. Max also mentioned the way he
was treated when he arrived in Madrid and how he was questioned for his
presence in the city – this reflects the beliefs toward immigration from
autochthonous nationals. That is a form of symbolic violence to the extent that
discourses that challenge the right to share the same space, to relate with
classmates in a positive way, to live in the country in which one chooses to
reside may be experienced as a form of violence that adds-up to other forms of
violence, such as those that Max was living at home and within his school
environment.
Another aspect of immigration in school is the folclorization of differences. This
view encourages us to consider the world through the prism of separate and distinct
cultures – Ecuadorian culture, Bolivian culture – as if each culture has some core
characteristic. We see clashes of cultures. As Phillips (2007) argued, the aim is to
dispense with reified notions of culture or homogenised conceptions of the cultural
group. The following is part of Max’s narrative (from Madrid), which represents
what some immigrant students say about their teachers:

224
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

Whenever my teacher wants to talk about Ecuador he addresses us the

Ecuadorians in the class as if we knew the history of Ecuador. I arrived in
this country when I was six. I don’t know it! I feel under the spot and
uncomfortable. If he is the teacher he should be able to teach me about
Ecuador.
Interestingly, a Bolivian student in Buenos Aires made a similar comment. When
we asked him about whether they learnt something about his own country in school
he mentioned that sometimes his history teacher, after presenting an event of
Argentine history, would look at him and his Bolivian classmates and ask them
how that particular event would relate to Bolivian history – “But I feel
uncomfortable, because I don’t know much about Bolivian history. I wish I did”.
This is an interesting example of the ways in which educators in schools
sometimes caricature and over-simplify differences, thinking that because students
were born in a specific place they carry the knowledge of its history.
Not all teachers followed this type of approach. In Madrid, Sofía, a 14-year-old
student from Buenos Aires whose family migrated first to Israel and then to Spain
also had some good experiences with her teachers. She commented on what
differentiates a good teacher from the rest:
My teacher in physics is very good. He is from the old school; he observes
students and tries to help them. They say that young teachers don’t care
today. They do their job, they teach those who want to learn, who are very
few, and that’s it, under the principle: ‘I get my salary at the end of the
month’. But there are other teachers who are usually the ones with more
experience who want to teach even those who don’t want to learn. Although
that may seem impossible, they achieve it! I’ve had classmates that didn’t
have any interest whatsoever in any subject but the good teacher tries to
seduce them into learning. This teacher in physics used to explain electricity
talking about ants. This is a good way to visualise it. When you are in front
of the exam you imagine the ants and you remember!
Gay (2000) defined culturally responsive teaching as using the cultural knowledge,
prior experiences, and performance styles of diverse students to make learning
more appropriate and effective for them; it teaches to and through the strengths of
these students. It acknowledges the legitimacy of the cultural heritages of different
ethnic groups, both as legacies that affect students’ dispositions, attitudes, and
approaches to learning and as worthy content to be taught in the formal curriculum.
In Buenos Aires, most students mentioned that some teachers were very helpful
with them. However, overall, they referred to very specific interventions based on
some kind of emotional or academic support. Therefore, even though there are no
institutionalised mechanisms to attend to the needs of immigrant students in
schools, some informal support networks between educators and students were
reported as being in place. These were dependant of the good will of certain people
and were mostly based on providing emotional support to address specific student
problems; they were not necessarily aimed at facilitating overall social
democratisation, equality and parity of participation in social life.

225
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

SOME FINAL REMARKS

Research indicates that low-income immigrant and minority students often

encounter aesthetically unpleasant and ill-equipped learning environments,
inadequate instructional materials, ineffective teachers and defiant peer subcultures
such as youth gangs (Vigil, 1997). These studies specifically point to school
factors such as teachers’ low-expectations and lack of cultural awareness, a
curriculum that does not reflect the life experiences of immigrant and minority
youth, and the lack of institutional support systems as contributing to low academic
performance (Conchas & Rodriguez, 2008). While schools by themselves are hard-
pressed to circumvent structural inequality at the larger social and economic level,
they can have a powerful effect on students’ experiences of social conditions. In
this chapter, we described the results of a study that examined how legislation on
immigration and education policies in Argentina and Spain relate to and have
impacted the construction of ‘colonial difference’ between Europeans, Creoles, and
indigenous populations, as experienced by students and educators in school
settings in Buenos Aires and Madrid. In both cities, the overall approach is based
on the notion of assimilation to an imagined mainstream culture. Within this
general approach, misrecognition of the specific needs of immigrant students takes
place in schools in both cities, although in very different forms in each location. In
the case of Madrid, differences are emphasised through specific compensatory
practices aimed at immigrant groups. In Buenos Aires differences are obscured
and, to a certain extent, ignored. Nevertheless, both educational systems need to re-
think the way in which they deal with immigrant students and with injustices
rooted in socio-cultural patterns of representation of specific groups. These two
cases emphasise the need to reflect upon “the extent to which race or ethnicity [and
nationality] should be highlighted or obscured in educational settings and what
form such saliency (or dimness) should take” (Bekerman, Zembylas & Mcglynn,
2009, p. 226)
The unprecedented efforts to create a fortress Europe combined with the
increased efforts to deport irregular immigrants15 tell much about how a majority
of society perceives immigrants and suggests to what lengths society might go, if
authorised under law, to free itself of minorities. In this way, immigration has
proven to be a battlefield for status amongst autochthonous and the TCN
immigrant populations as well as their descendants in the European Union.
Therefore, there are important contradictions contained in the integration policies
of host countries. It is a question of having the power to define the basis for
integration. The ‘equal opportunity’ aspect of the integration policy overlooks
some central points in relation to the distribution of resources, cultural capital
and legal status. Millions of immigrants in the EU and in Argentina never get to
the point of being in a position to make use of the equal opportunities available
to them. In the end, the impact of exclusionary immigration polices does more
than just stigmatise immigration and domestic minorities. Exclusion in the
immigration laws and educational policies must be considered as an integral part
of a larger mosaic of discrimination in European and American societies. If the
democratic states do not succeed in integrating immigrants into society, they run

226
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

the risk of having ethnic and social segregation. This is already the case to
varying degrees in Spain and Argentina and poses significant challenges to the
democratic systems of these societies. Immigrants and minority groups implicitly
understand the link between educational, racial, ethnic and political exclusions
and their position in the racial and ethnic hierarchy and the legal system in their
host countries.

NOTES
1
We would like to thank AECID (Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional y Desarrollo) for
their financial support, which has enabled us to conduct this study.
2
It is important to note that these numbers do not consider the sons and daughters of immigrant
parents that were born in Argentina, which are socially considered to be Bolivian, Paraguayan and
so on (Grimson, 2006).
3
There is not much research on Chilean immigration in Argentina.
4
Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Evolution of the foreign population in Spain since 1998.
5
The term Third Country National refers to any person who is not a national or a citizen of a
European Union Member State.
6
Overall, in primary education, there were 305,520 pupils and in compulsory secondary education
(ESO) there were 213,530 students (Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 9).
7
That is, 32,085 students enrolled in post-secondary education and 40,197 in vocational training
(Ministerio de Educación, 2009, p. 10).
8
Source: Ministerio de Educación, 2010.
9
Source: Ministerio de Educación, 2010.
10
From the report entitled, “Datos y cifras. Curso escolar 2009–2010” published by Ministerio de
Educación, in July, 2009.
11
Source: “Datos y cifras de la educación 2009–2010” [Facts and figures of education 2009–2010],
published by Consejería de Educación, Comunidad de Madrid, in 2010.
12
Names of schools and individuals were changed in order to preserve their anonymity.
13
A derogatory term for South Americans.
14
The Jesuits were instrumental in the development of the slave trade from Africa to South America to
be used in the gold mines; up to half a million slaves were shipped. Both Spain and Portugal were
angry at the increasing wealth and influence of the Jesuits encroaching on their profits from the
slaves and the monopolisation of trade. The Jesuits only lost control in 1773 at the disbandment of
the Order (Juang & Morrissette, 2008).
15
As reported through an article in El País Newspaper, Spanish Prime Minister, Mr. Rodríguez-
Zapatero and French President, Mr. Sarkozy agreed on January 10, 2008 to start conjoint
programmes of repatriation of irregular migrants. Both agreed that irregular immigration “has no
room” in Spain or in France (El País, 2008).

REFERENCES

Argentina (2004). Ley de Migraciones [Migration Law] Law No. 25,871. Retrieved from
http://www.me.gov.ar/validez/ley25871.html
Aruj, R, Novick, S. & Oteiza, E. (2000). Inmigración y Discriminación: Políticas y Discursos
[Immigration and Discrimination: Policies and Discourses]. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editor
Universitario.
Bekerman, Z, Zembylas, M. & Mcglynn, C. (2009). “Working toward the De-essentialization of
Identity Categories in Conflict and Postconflict Societies: Israel, Cyprus, and Northern Ireland”,
Comparative Education Review 53(2). 213–234.

227
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

Bernstein, B. (1970). ‘Education cannot compensate for society’, New society (London), 15(387),
344–347.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control. Volume 1: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of
Language. Boston: Routledge & Paul Kegan.
BOE. (2002). Boletín Oficial del Estado de España. 24 de diciembre: 45118–45220.
Cachón-Rodríguez, L. (2003). Inmigrantes jóvenes en España. Sistema educativo y mercado de
trabajo[Young immigrants in Spain. Educational system and labour market]. Madrid: Edición
Injuve.
Castro-Gómez, S. (2008). (Post)coloniality for dummies: Latin American perspectives on modernity,
coloniality, and the geopolitics of knowledge. In M. Moraña, E. Dussel & C. A. Jáuregui,
Coloniality at large. Latin America and the postcolonial debate (pp. 259–285). Durham: Duke
University Press.
Ceva, M. (2006). La migración limítrofe hacia la Argentina [Migration from neighbouring countries to
Argentina]. Buenos Aires: Prometeo libros.
Chanady, A. (2008). The Latin American postcolonialism debate in a comparative context. In
M. Moraña, E. Dussel & C. A. Jáuregui, Coloniality at large. Latin America and the postcolonial
debate (pp. 417–434). Durham: Duke University Press
Collicelli, C. (2001). Integrating immigrant children into Europe. New perspectives for learning.
Briefing paper 17. The European Commission. Improving human research potential and socio-
economic knowledge base.
Conchas, G., & Rodriguez, L. (2008). Small schools and urban youth: Using the power of school
culture to engage students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Consejería de Educación, Comunidad de Madrid. (2010). Datos y cifras de la educación 2009/2010.
Retrieved from www.madrid.org/edupubli.
Dewey, J. (1998). Experience and education. West Lafayette, Indiana: Kappa, Delta Pi.
Dussel, E. (2008). Philosophy of liberation, the postmodern debate, and Latin American studies. In
M. Moraña, E. Dussel & C. A. Jáuregui, Coloniality at large. Latin America and the postcolonial
debate (pp. 335–349). Durham: Duke University Press.
El País (2008, January 10th) España y Francia lanzan la lucha “preventiva” contra ETA. Rerieved from
http://elpais.com/elpais/2008/01/10/actualidad/1199956619_850215.html
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gasparini, L. & Cruces, G. (2008). A distribution in Motion: The Case of Argentina. A Review of the
Empirical Evidence. CEDLAS. Universidad de La Plata.
Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (2006). Relevamiento anual 2006.
Grimson, A.(2006). “Nuevas xenofobias, nuevas políticas étnicas en Argentina [New xenophobia, and
new ethnic policies in Argentina]”. In Grimson, A & Jelin, E. (Eds.) Migraciones regionales hacia
la Argentina: Diferencias, desigualdades y derechos (pp. 69–97). Buenos Aires: Prometeo.
Gvirtz, S., Beech, J. & Oria, A. (2008). “Schooling in Argentina”. In Gvirtz, S. and Beech, J. (Eds.)
Going to School in Latin America (pp. 5–34). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
INDEC, Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos. Argentina (n.d.). Retrieved November 2009.
http://www.indec.gov.ar/
INE. (1998). http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/mnu_justicia.htm
Jacott, L. & Maldonado, A.(2004). Understanding the demand for schooling. Draft country report:
Spain. Paris: OECD.
Juang, R. M. & Morrissette, N.(Eds.). (2008). Africa and the Americas (ABC-CLIO).
LOCE. (2002). Ley Orgánica 10/2002, de 23 de diciembre, de Calidad de la Educación (B.O.E. 24 de
diciembre de 2002).
Mazzotti, J. A. (2008). Creole agencies and the (post)colonial debate in Spanish America. In
M. Moraña, E. Dussel & C. A. Jáuregui, Coloniality at large. Latin America and the postcolonial
debate (pp. 77–112). Durham: Duke University Press.

228
 NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

Mignolo, D. W. (2008a). The geopolitics of knowledge and the colonial difference. In M. Moraña,
E. Dussel & C. A. Jáuregui, Coloniality at large. Latin America and the postcolonial debate
(pp. 225–258). Durham: Duke University Press.
Mignolo, D. W. (2008b). The idea of Latin America. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Ministerio de Educación. (2010). Evolución y situación actual de la presencia del alumnado extranjero
en el sistema educativo español. (http://www.educacion.gob.es/dctm/ministerio/educacion/sistema-
educativo/)
Ministerio de Educación, España (2009). Datos y cifras. Curso escolar 2009–2010. (http://www.
educacion.gob.es/dctm/ministerio/educacion/sistema-educativo/)
Moraña, M., Dussel, E. & Jáuregui, C. A. (2008). Colonialism and its replicants. In M. Moraña,
E. Dussel & C. A. Jáuregui, Coloniality at large. Latin America and the postcolonial debate
(pp. 1–22). Durham: Duke University Press.
Narodowski, M. & Nores, M. (2002): “Socio-economic Segregation with (without) Competitive
Education Policies. A Comparative Analysis of Argentina and Chile”, in Comparative Education,
38(4). 429–452.
Neufeld, M. R. & Thisted, J. A. (Eds.) (1999). “De eso no se habla...”. Los usos de la diversidad
sociocultural en la escuela [The uses of socio-cultural diversity in schools]. Buenos Aires:
Eudeba.
Observatorio de Inmigración. (2012). Informe de población extranjera empadronada en la Comunidad
de Madrid [Report of foreign population enrolled in the Community of Madrid]. Centro de Estudios
y Datos. (http://www.madrid.org).
Oliver, J. (2006). España 2020: Un mestizaje ineludible [Spain 2020: An inevitable miscegenation].
Barcelona: Instituto de Estudios Autonómicos.
Ombudsman´s Report, (2003). On schooling the immigrant child (http://www.defensordelpueblo.es)
Oteiza, E. & Novick, S. (2000). Inmigración y derechos humanos. Política y discursos en el tramo final
del menemismo [Immigration and human rights. Policies and Discourses in the late Menem
administration]. Buenos Aires: Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani, Facultad de Ciencias
Sociales, Universidad de Buenos Aires. Documento de Trabajo 14.
PISA. (2005). Education at a glance. Paris: OCDE.
Quijano, A. (2008). Coloniality of power, Eurocentrism, and social classification. In M. Moraña,
E. Dussel & C. A. Jáuregui, Coloniality at large. Latin America and the postcolonial debate
(pp. 181–224). Durham: Duke University Press.
Rizvi, F. (2009). Mobile minds. In J. Kenway & J. Fahey, Globalizing the research imagination
(pp. 101–114). Abingdon: Routledge.
Romero, L. A. (2001). Breve historia contemporánea de la Argentina [Brief contemporary history of
Argentina]. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica de Argentina.
Sassone, S. & Mera, C. (2007). “Barrios de migrantes en Buenos Aires: Identidad, cultura y cohesión
socioterritorial [Migrant neighbourhoods in Buenos Aires: identity, culture and socio-territorial
cohesion]”. Presented in the European Congress of Latin American Studies, Bruxels, Belgium.
Retreived from http://www.reseau-amerique-latine.fr/ceisal-bruxelles/MS-MIG/MS-MIG-1-Sassone
_Mera.pdf
Sebastián, M. (2006). Informe sobre la inmigración [Report on immigration]. Madrid: Oficina
Económica del Gobierno.
Tedesco, J. C. (1986). Educación y Sociedad en Argentina (1880–1945) [Education and Society in
Argentina]. Buenos Aires: Edición del Solar.
Teese, R., S. Lamb & M. Duru-Bellat (Eds.) (2007). International studies in educational inequality,
theory and policy. Volume 1; Educational Inequality; Persistence and ChangeDordrecht: Springer.
Veleda, C. (2009). “Regulación estatal y segregación educativa en la provincia de Buenos Aires [State
regulation and school segregation in the Province of Buenos Aires]. Revista de Política Educativa.
1(1). 37–65.
Vigil, J. D. (1997). Personas Mexicanas: Chicano high schoolers in a changing Los Angeles. Ft. Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace.

229
J. BEECH AND A. BRAVO-MORENO

Jason Beech
School of Education
University of San Andrés

Ana Bravo-Moreno
Department of Social Anthropology
University of Granada

230
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

S. Karin Amos is Professor of Education at the University in Tübingen since 2006.

Her recent research focuses on issues of the relation between the concepts of
governance and governmentality, both nationally and internationally.
Internationally she takes part in a European research consortium: Governance of
Educational Trajectories in Europe (GOETE). Recent publications include:
Governance and Governmentality: Relation and relevance of two prominent social
scientific concepts for comparative education. She is currently Chair of the
standing research committee of the World Council of Comparative Education
Societies.
***
Jason Beech is Director of the School of Education at the Universidad de San
Andrés in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he also teaches Comparative Education.
He is a Researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research of
Argentina (CONICET). He is co-editor of the journal Revista de Política
Educativa. His main interests are the transfer of specialised knowledge about
education in the global educational field and conditions of reception in different
local contexts.
***
Inga Bostad, Dr. Philos, currently elected Pro-Rector at the University of Oslo
(since 2009), vice-rector (2006–2009), Associate Professor in Philosophy (since
2004), specializes in language philosophy, scepticism and pedagogical philosophy.
She has published several books and articles. She was the leader of both a
government appointed committee for new objective clause for education in
Norway (2006–2007), as well as the National Commission on General Education
in Higher Education (2007–2009).
***
Ana Bravo-Moreno is an Associate Professor at the Department of Social
Anthropology, University of Granada, Spain. Her most recent publication is x
“Migration, educational policies and practices”, in Z. Bekerman and T. Geisen
(Eds.) International Handbook of Migration, Minorities and Education (2012). She
is also the author of the book Migration, Gender and National identity (2006). Her
main research interest is in the area of international migration.
***
David Coulby is Professor of Education at Bath Spa University, UK where he
teaches the Masters module on globalisation and education. He has published
widely, and occasionally deeply, in the fields of international education and
interculturalism, most recently in an ongoing series of articles in Intercultural

231
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Education. His main research theme is the sociology and history of culture, though
current interests include the political decline of Europe and the impact of climate
change on curricular systems.
***
Robert Cowen is Emeritus Professor of Education in the University of London
Institute of Education, a Senior Research Fellow of the University of Oxford, and a
former President of the Comparative Education Society in Europe (CESE). His
publications include Cowen, R. & Kazamias, A. (Eds.) International handbook of
comparative education (2009) and Cowen, R. & Klerides, L. (Eds.) Mobilities and
educational metamorphoses: patterns, puzzles, and possibilities [Special issue].
Comparative Education, 45(3). 2009.
***
Eleftherios Klerides is the Secretary-Treasurer of CESE, a Lecturer in Comparative
Education and History of Education at the University of Cyprus, and an Associate
of the American University of Beirut. He holds a Ph.D. from the Institute of
Education, University of London. His research focuses on the study of educated
identities from comparative and historical perspectives. Currently he is particularly
interested in the work of international agencies in Southeast Europe and Eastern
Mediterranean, especially how these agencies seek to influence and reshape local
notions of what it means to be educated through the diffusion of discourses on
history teaching, interculturality and gender equality.
***
Hans-Georg Kotthoff holds an M.A. in Curriculum Studies (University of London,
Institute of Education) and a Ph.D. (1993) and a post-doctoral qualification
(Habilitation) in Comparative Education (University of Münster, Germany, 2003).
He has extensive and long-standing experience in international cooperation and
research in the field of school governance, European educational policy and school
evaluation and autonomy. Since 2004 Hans-Georg Kotthoff has been Full
Professor of International Comparative Education at the University of Education in
Freiburg and has been Vice President of the Comparative Education Society in
Europe (CESE) since 2008.
***
Ulf P. Lundgren, Professor of Psychology and Education, Aalborg University,
Denmark, 1974; Professor of Education, Stockholm Institute of Education 1975;
Vice Chancellor, Stockholm Institute of Education, 1990; Director General of the
National Agency for Education in Sweden, 1991; Professor of Education –
Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy (personal chair), Uppsala
University 2000; Secretary General, the Board of Educational Sciences at the
Swedish Research Council 2004; Professor emeritus 2012. Research fields:
curriculum theory, educational history and policy studies, evaluation and
educational philosophy.

232
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

***
Katharina Maag Merki studied educational science and psychology at the
University of Zurich (Switzerland) and holds a Ph.D. (2000) in Educational
Psychology. Since 2009 she has been full professor for Educational Science at the
University of Zurich, Switzerland. Her interests include empirical and theoretical
analyses of school effectiveness, school improvement and educational governance.
She is President of the Swiss Society for Researching Education (SSRE) and
Member of the Review Board ‘Educational Science’ of the German Research
Foundation.
***
Anselmo R. Paolone (Ph.D., European University Institute) has been a Visiting
Global Fellow, New York University (1999–2000), Visiting Researcher, London
School of Economics (2000–2001) and Lecturer, University of Rome ’Tor
Vergata‘. Currently, he is Researcher (tenured) and Lecturer in the Department of
Education, University of Udine, Italy. His main research interests are in the areas
of comparative education, history of education, ethnography of education. He is
Board Member of SICESE (Sezione Italiana della Comparative Education Society
in Europe)
***
Carla Roverselli (Ph.D.) is Associate Professor in Intercultural Education at
University of Rome ’Tor Vergata‘. Her main research interests are in the areas of
intercultural education, history of education, philosophy of education, comparative
education. She has been a member of international research project teams and has
been participating in many national and international scientific symposia. From
2006 she has been a member of the Executive Committee of SICESE (Sezione
Italiana della Comparative Education Society in Europe).
***
María José García Ruiz is Associate Professor of Comparative Education in the
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain. She is
Secretary of the Spanish Society of Comparative Education, and Deputy Secretary
of the Faculty of Education of the UNED. Among her latest writings are: OECD,
PISA and Finnish and Spanish Comprehensive School, Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, (2011) 15; La Educación Comparada, una disciplina entre la
Modernidad y el Postmodernismo, Revista Latinoamericana de Educación
Comparada, (2011) 2.
***
Aljona Sandgren, born in Moldova, now lives in Sweden. She studied and worked
in Moldova, the UK and Sweden, she received her M.A. in Comparative and
International Education (Educational Leadership and Management) from
Stockholm University. Her present Ph.D. research, at Åbo Akademi University,
has the theme Entrepreneurialism and managerialism in universities, in

233
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

comparative perspective. Research and professional interest (as coordinator of

international projects) include social, green and academic entrepreneurship,
university management and organizational culture.
***
Christina Segerholm is currently professor in Education at MidSweden University.
Her research interests include education policy and governing, particularly the
impact of evaluative activities, e.g. quality assessment and school inspection on
education policy and practice. Lately she has pursued these interests in two
international comparative research projects, one reported in the book Fabricating
Quality in Education: Data and governance in Europe edited by J. Ozga et al. She
also teaches at undergraduate and graduate levels.

234