Abstract
AbstractThis chapter will discuss the apparent move away from the specificity of the context of application to the universality and interdependence of global education metrics: instead of the production of contextual knowledge, quantification in transnational governance has led to the production of expertise that is thoroughly standardised, de-contextualised, interdependent and even, as we shall see—at times—universal. The chapter will focus on two empirical examples of international organisations that saw their status as knowledge producers and expert brokers rise over the last 20 years: these are the OECD, and its collaboration with the European Commission, as well as the UNESCO Institute of Statistics with its coordination of the SDG4. Through an analytical account of these organisations’ key measurement exercises, the chapter will chart two key developments towards the production of decontextualised governing knowledge: these are the rise of interdependence of IOs in the production of expertise; secondly, the production of universal narratives of education progress and unity. Through concrete empirical examples, the chapter will show how the production of new global expert knowledge does not only contribute to performance measurement; rather, through discourse analysis of a range of policy documents as well as interviews with key policy actors, the chapter will show that monitoring frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, have the ambition and scope to construct universal knowledge to guide governance globally.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference68 articles.
1. Alonso, W., & Starr, P. (Eds.). (1987). The politics of numbers. Russell Sage Foundation and Planning and Duke University Press.
2. Barnett, N. M., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53, 699–732. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081899551048
3. Barry, A. (2012). Political situations: Knowledge controversies in transnational governance. Critical Policy Studies, 6(3), 324–336.
4. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Illinois Press.
5. Bhuta, N. (2012). Governmentalizing sovereignty: Indexes of state fragility and the calculability of political order. In B. Kingsbury, S. Merry, & K. Davis (Eds.), Indicators as technologies of global governance. Oxford University Press.