European Educational Research Journal, Volume, Number 4, 00 RESEARCH REPORT ECER s Space in Europe: in between science, research and politics? A research report MARTINA KENK University of Frankfurt, Germany ABSTRACT The sciences of education in Europe are situated in between national, European and international spaces, challenged by Europeanisation processes and European research policy. The author takes up the debates at European Conferences on Educational Research (ECERs) on the formation of a European educational research space by academic actors versus the foundation of a European (Educational) Research Area by European Union (EU) policy. This report provides results of the author s investigation of the Europeanness of the European Educational Research Association (EERA) and ECER, thereby sketching an exemplary picture of the current state of the sciences of education in Europe, indicating tendencies over the last few years, while analysing the European dimension of EERA and ECER. The representation of educational scientists from a variety of (not only) European countries points to three problematic issues: the dominance of EU member states, especially of the United Kingdom; the tendency towards marginalisation of European non-member states; and a clearly biased European educational research space.. Introduction In my research report I take up questions which arose during my first participation in the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) in 00, in Lisbon. These questions are linked to my research context and dissertation project in the field of comparative research on the sciences of education in Europe. My background lies in the German sciences of education, 64
ECER S SPACE IN EUROPE where one finds a nationally and disciplinary closed academic tradition (Keiner, 999). Thus, German sciences of education display a rather low interest in European issues and networking. Due to my experiences as a doctoral student in the science business (i.e. at conferences of the German Association of Sciences of Education [DGfE] and at ECER), I started to work on the following questions: what kind of space do the European Educational Research Association (EERA) and the ECER take up in Europe? How can one describe their so-to-speak Europeanness? What role do they take on in the context of current processes of Europeanisation in research? I am especially interested in () the education and research policy of the European Union (EU), which addresses researchers and scholars in the field of education, and in () the contribution of these academic actors to Europeanisation processes, with regard to structural aspects of organisation and networking in the sciences of education, to knowledge production on European issues, and to academic policy advice. The following examples are used to gain a deeper understanding about the emergence of a European educational research space.[] The first part refers to aspects of the educational research policy of the EU, while the second part focuses on the space of ECER and its European dimension.. Aspects of the Educational Research Policy of the European Union Focusing on the EU as one core political agency in the process of Europeanisation, there are indicators showing a mutual communication and interaction between politics and research, especially when looking at relationships between European educational research policy and the European academic community. I briefly discuss three indicators.. The first indicator is the political interest in the EERA. EU representatives wanted to provide the Commission with a platform and a vehicle to approach educational researchers as the occasion arises (Plomp, 99, quoted by Gretler, 00). They actively brought researchers, politicians and associations together. At the same time, international organisations like the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) needed a representative European contact partner in educational research (Gretler, 00).[] Thus, the EERA can be used by political agencies to address the European academic community, to express their interests, goals and agendas and to negotiate the definition of research quality standards and benchmarks.. The second indicator is the selective EU policy of funding educational research. In the 990s, the European Commission started to consider education as a research issue worth being supported, and in 994, education was, for the first time, included in the forth EU framework programme. From the outlines of these programmes, given the placement of educational issues, agenda-setting and steering mechanisms in research, one could conclude that the EU regards educational research as subordinated to the social sciences. 65
Martina Kenk. The third indicator inversely refers to the European academic community addressing European research policy. At ECER meetings with researchers and EU policy actors, the European dimension of education and of educational research is discussed.[] The twofold function of this exchange consists of EU representatives informing researchers, and academic actors expressing their standpoints and advising policy.[4] These indicators point to a connection, communication and influence, in a hybrid space, situated in between politics and research. These system transgressing spaces could take on a specific organisational form with flat, informal, unstable and varying structures. They emerge as social networks, where political actors can exploit scientific knowledge. From this stance, the political actors are able to exert power by means of scarce resources (Sirota et al, 00; Keiner, 00).. The Space of ECER and its European Dimension The social actors and knowledge producers in the sciences of education contribute in some way to a European educational research space. The EU research policy aims at the formation of a European Research Area (ERA) and formulates basic requirements for such an area. From this background it is necessary to ask how far the academic organisational structure and community in Europe meet the criteria of the EU (Agalianos et al, 00). I again use the EERA as an example. Founded in 994, the EERA is an organisational structure of and for academic knowledge producers in the field of education in Europe. () It provides researchers with an infrastructure and a platform for communication and knowledge distribution. () The EERA s policy is to offer membership also to non-eu member states, thus aiming at the integration of other European countries. () A focus on the European dimension beyond national and transnational issues is required (EERA website 00).[5] Thus, the foundation and maintenance of the EERA contributes to some extent to a European educational research space. But what kind of Europe is represented by the EERA? In regard to official or formal representation of European countries at the level of executive committee, member institutions and associations, and network conveners, the EERA is clearly biased. At all levels, the United Kingdom is dominant, followed by Sweden, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands. Interestingly, Canada and Australia two non-european countries are included at the level of network conveners (see Table I). However, this formal structure of the EERA is only one aspect, but it might affect the national and cultural structure of the EERA with regard to its active participants. More important are the social actors who participate in the EERA s annual European Conference on Educational Research (ECER). ECER can be regarded as the main event and meeting of educational researchers in Europe. The knowledge presenters at ECER are actively focused at a European level 66
ECER S SPACE IN EUROPE and contribute beyond national and specialised educational sciences to the European dimension of an educational research space. An analysis of the countries represented by these educational scientists gives a more thoroughly informed picture of this Europe. EERA UK Swe Net Fin Ger Fra Spa Bel E.committee 0 Institutions 6 4 0 Associations 0 Conveners 9 7 7 6 6 5 4 Total 4 0 0 9 5 EERA Ita* Den Nor Slo Por Cze* Ire Aut* E.committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 Institutions 0 0 0 0 0 Associations 0 0 0 0 0 Conveners 4 Total 4 4 5 4 EERA Gre* Swi Lux Pol Lit Ice Can* Aus* E.committee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Institutions 0 0 0 0 0 Associations 0 0 0 0 0 Conveners 0 0 0 0 0 Total Table I. EERA s formal organisational structure representation of countries (Executive committee total: ; Institutions: 4; Associations: 4; Conveners: 86). Source: EERA website, August 00. The countries marked * are not members of EERA. The information on the website might not be up to date, but I use it as this is the official and broadly accessible information; and after ECER 00 in September there might have been changes as well, probably on the level of network conveners. Remarks on the Research I would like to present some results of a small and low-level investigation about ECER and the space represented by the participating researchers. I compare three ECER conferences, the first official one in 998 in Slovenia, the fourth in 00, in France, and this year s ECER in Germany. I consider this selection the beginning, a middle point and the actual state as sufficient to get a first impression and to draw some careful conclusions. Of course, it would be better to extend the research to all ECER conferences in order to get a more thoroughly informed picture of the development over time. 67
Martina Kenk As sources I used the conference programmes, which are available on the Education-line website. The data presented here do not mirror the actual reality but only the announced programme; therefore later changes, cancellations etc. cannot be taken into account on the basis of this source. As I am interested only in the active knowledge production, distribution and its national linkage, I counted the presentations at the ECER conferences according to the national affiliation of the presenters institution, based on the information given in the conference programmes. Thus, passive participants without presentation are not included here. The focus is not epistemic on the content of the knowledge distributed through a presentation. For instance, a Lithuanian researcher working at a university in the United Kingdom on a comparison of teacher training in the United Kingdom and Lithuania would be counted as United Kingdom. Such a complexity or mixture of epistemic, institutional and cultural or national affiliation is unfortunately not reflected in my research, as it takes only the country of the researcher s institution into account. For each presentation listed in the programme, I counted the national affiliation for each country. If there was more than one presenter and they came from different countries, all of these countries were counted, but only once. Therefore it is possible that the sum of representations is higher than the total of presentations in the programme. (In 998, the sum is lower, because some presentations were not accessible and could not be counted. In 00, the presentations with only names and without institution [0] were excluded.) Thus, the higher the sum of representations, the more the presentations are nationally mixed. This is especially the case for this year s ECER, where the difference is relatively high compared to the other years. These explanations are important to consider the extent of bias in my data collection. In contrast to this bias, the following aspects point to effects that become visible in the results. A remark is necessary on the level of comparison which can be used here. I only work with absolute numbers from my data collection and percentages based on these. It would add another dimension and level of comparison if the number of presentations from one country could be related to the number of researchers and scholars in the field of education in that country. So, when looking at the results, one might consider assumptions about the size of the educational academic population in the respective countries. The existence of national or specialised associations in a country and its membership in EERA could also affect the extent of participation in ECER. Another aspect that I found is what I call the host country phenomenon. Every year, ECER takes place in a different country. Thus, the number of presentations or representations from the respective host country is probably higher than in other years. So, when looking at the data of Slovenia, France and Germany, one should consider this bias. Additionally, there are local or other effects relating to the timing of ECER, which influence the number of presentations from some countries. One 68
ECER S SPACE IN EUROPE example is the ECER in France, where at the same time the annual conference of the French association of educational research was held (Agalianos et.al, 00, p. 85). One could assume that two big events at the same time and addressing a similar audience reduce the number of participants in both conferences. Thus, in the case of France, the host country effect is probably reduced. Research Results I would like to present my results from two viewpoints: () viewing ECER s Europe according to the EU status of the respective countries, and () searching for ECER s Europe based on the ranking of countries according to the extent of their representation. Figures - follow the commonly used differentiation of Europe. They display the percentages of presentations given at ECER in the years 998, 00 and 00 according to the national affiliation of the presenter s institution, sorted by the EU status of the countries. 7% 0% EU member states % new member states % applicant countries 70% other European countries non-european countries Figure. ECER 998. Number of Presentations countries. Source: ECER 998 programme on Education-line website, own calculations. % 5% 4% 6% 7% EU member states new member states applicant countries other European countries non-european countries Figure. ECER 00. Number of presentations countries. Source: ECER 00 programme on Education-line website, own calculations. 69
Martina Kenk % 6% 9% 7% 77% EU member states new member states applicant countries other European countries non-european countries Figure. ECER 00. Number of presentations countries. Source: ECER 00 programme on Education-line website, own calculations. ECER 998 00 00 n % n % n % EU member states 6 70 87 7 600 77 (UK) (7) (64) (94) New member states 6 9 6 56 7 Applicant countries 6 4 Other European countries 4 7 4 5 44 6 Non-European countries 49 0 64 67 9 Total 54 55 778 Table II. ECER 998, 00, 00 number of national representations according to EU status of the countries. Source: ECER programmes of 998, 00, 00 on Education-line website, own calculations. The non-european countries representation varies between 0% in 998, % in 00, and 9% in 00 with a variation of about countries. When looking at the absolute numbers, there is a clear increase between 998 and 00, and only a slight increase in 00.[6] One could assume an international interest in ECER, and one could add that European issues are not only of interest for Europeans, but in the context of globalisation they are processes of importance, especially when regarded as a counterweight to Americanism or in competition with the USA or Asia. Remarkable is the share of presenters from the United Kingdom. In every year, their share is higher than that of all non-eu member states together. In relation to the EU member states, the UK share decreased from nearly half of the EU share in 998, with a fall in 00 to under a third of the EU share [7], to a third in 00. The ECER in 00 seems to be characterised by a clear reduction in all these aspects, which is compensated by an increase of presentations from EU member states. 60
ECER S SPACE IN EUROPE The main difference between the three years is that the percentage of presenters from the new member states decreases while the one from the EU member states increases. In contrast to the EERA s aim of integrating new member states, their share was relatively higher in 998 than in 00, with a clear fall in absolute numbers in 00. A second, differing image of European representation at ECER can be drawn when looking at the countries with the highest numbers of presentations, presented as a ranking (see Figures 4, 5 and 6). ECER 00 00 998 United Kingdom Sweden Finland Germany The Netherlands France Spain Slovenia Portugal Norway USA Belgium Turkey Australia Ireland 6 0 4 4 8 4 7 40 4 5 45 6 0 8 4 5 9 5 6 6 5 9 7 9 4 0 7 85 6 7 7 64 94 0 5 50 75 00 5 50 75 00 Figure 4a. Countries represented in three ECERs. Source: ECER 998, 00, 00 programme on Education-line website, own calculations. 6
Martina Kenk ECER Poland Canada Italy Switzerland Japan Greece Estonia Czech Republic Austria Israel Denmark South-Africa EU Iran Russia 00 00 998 4 8 4 4 7 8 4 5 0 5 0 8 4 6 6 4 6 9 7 6 5 4 0 5 50 75 00 5 50 75 00 Figure 4b. Countries represented in three ECERs. Source: ECER 998, 00, 00 programme on Education-line website, own calculations. The first positions in this ranking are held by EU member states, which also have a dominant position in EERA. Considering the question, if the status of membership or the formal representation in the EERA of a country corresponds with its representation in ECER, one can observe an effect in some cases, i.e. for the non-members Italy, Czech Republic, Canada, Australia. The first non-european countries in this ranking are the USA, Australia and Canada. While the position of the USA is declining over the years, and Australia s is more or less steady, with a small increase in 00, Canada s and Japan s positions are more marginal, except for ECER 00 probably a 6
ECER S SPACE IN EUROPE language effect in the case of Canada. Israel, South-Africa, and Iran are represented every year; other non-european countries do not participate in ECER regularly (see Figures 5 and 6). ECER 00 00 998 Croatia Lithuania Brazil Hungary 7 8 4 Malta Taiwan Serbia Romania New Zealand 4 4 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 4 5 Figure. 5. Countries represented in two ECERs. Source: ECER 998, 00, 00 programme on Education-line website, own calculations. Conclusions These results seem to correspond with the dominance of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland and Germany, which can be observed in view of the formal structure of the EERA. The ECER representation of Europe covers most European countries, regardless of their political status and relation to the EU. But, when looking at the number of contributions, i.e. the visible knowledge capital, from each country, the picture shows a very little Europe [8] of only a few western EU member states. With regard to the enlargement of the EU, the EERA s goal to include European non-eu member states is highly ambitious. The number of these countries represented at ECER has slightly increased up to 00, and the number of their presentations increased from 998 to 00 in absolute numbers. But their percentage of presentations is clearly decreasing (from 0% in 998 to 5% in 00 and to 4% in 00). The representation of European countries in the EERA and ECER is far from equally distributed, but highly dominated by EU member states, and within these member states by a more or less oligarchic group of countries dominated by the United Kingdom [9] interestingly, a country which politically shows a rather ambivalent standpoint towards Europe.[0] 6
Martina Kenk ECER Iceland Cyprus Urugay Argentina 00 00 998 5 Kazakhstan Luxembourg Mexico Colombia Iraq Latvia Brunei China Singapore Slovakia 0 4 5 6 Figure 6. Countries represented in one ECER. Source: ECER 998, 00, 00 programme on Education-line website, own calculations. 4. In Between Science, Research and Politics? The examples of ECER and EERA populations illustrate a biased European educational research space not with regard to the programmatic intentions, but to the communicative practice. These findings in spite of a partly weak methodology point to, in my view, an important issue: There is the intention to form a European Educational Research Area, with a programme designed by the EU. However, there is a differently shaped European educational research space existing and transforming, practically constructed and managed by flows of participants, networks, subjects etc.[] We should not mix up these two constructs, but look more critically to the EERA s and ECER s own practices of unintended and invisible processes of inclusion and exclusion, in order to avoid results that secretly establish a European Educational Research Area that they (and we) never wanted. Notes [] I borrow this term from Martin Lawn. In this article, I distinguish between European educational research space and European (Educational) Research 64
ECER S SPACE IN EUROPE Area. I use the space notion referring to academic actors, researchers and scholars in the field of the sciences of education, in contrast to the term European Research Area, which is used by the EU and closely linked to European (educational) research policy, steering intentions and programmatic rhetoric. For a differentiation of the notions of space and area linked to transnational education policy actors, see Lawn & Lingard (00). For a discussion about the concept of an education space in Europe see Nóvoa & Lawn (00). [] For a more detailed analysis of current influences on national education policy by international actors such as the OECD, UNESCO, the World Bank and EU in the context of globalisation processes, see, for example, the work of the Finnish research group at the University of Turku (Hokka, 00; Kallo, 00). [] Some discussions between academic and policy actors at ECER pose core issues, for example, the existence of an emerging European education research space, the foundation of a European research council, benchmarking research, the role and future of the European Educational Research Journal (EERJ), or the creation of a European citation index. Reports are published in the EERJ. [4] A fourth criterion is named: a reflexive research community, which is networking, expanding research capacity, mobilising the critical mass and resources, and integrating perspectives in order to address the complexity of issues. Unfortunately, I cannot go into more detail on the basis of the collected data. However, it would be intriguing to investigate the reflexive potential and networking activities of the sciences of education community in Europe under the influence of steering intentions by research policy actors. [5] How far the fourth criterion of a reflexive research community is fulfilled by the EERA is a question still to be investigated. [6] One possible explanation might be again a local phenomenon: the host country, France, and the French language. In 00, the number of presentations from Canada, especially related to French issues or from Quebec, the Frenchspeaking part of Canada, were unusually high compared to other years. However, this does not explain everything. [7] In 00, a possible explanation might be the host country. [8] For very insightful thoughts on the conceptualisation of Europe(s), Little Europe and their existence as well as on the discourse of a European educational space, see Nóvoa (000). [9] Currently, the United Kingdom is said to be the most neo-liberalised country in Europe, which points to huge problems if not to say a crisis also in research. For some researchers, this leads to a higher interest in learning from other countries with different research conditions and in searching for solutions and ways of dealing with the marketisation of research and education. [0] I can only speculate on explanations for each country s representation, as I do not have a deep insight into the current state and problems of the specific national sciences of education throughout the world. Further elaboration and thoughts on interests, motivations and reasons to participate or not in ECER and EERA are very welcome. I hope I can contribute to some extent to the 65
Martina Kenk discussion of the emergence of a European educational research space by providing my first research results and some thoughts about the imagining of Europeanness in the transforming borderless (this term is borrowed from Lawn, 00) space of ECER. [] For a more detailed investigation of the network metaphor with regard to policy research relationships and questions of power and influence, see Ozga (00). References EERA website:. Executive committee, member associations, member institutions: www.eera.ac.uk/office.htm. List of networks with conveners: www.eera.ac.uk/special.html Education-line website:. ECER programme 998: brs.leeds.ac.uk/beiwww/beia/ecer98.htm. ECER programme 00: brs.leeds.ac.uk/beiwww/beia/ecer00.htm. ECER programme 00: brs.leeds.ac.uk/beiwww/beia/ecer00.htm Agalianos, A., Brunet, O. & McGaw, B. (00) Is There an Emerging European Education Research Space? European Educational Research Journal, () pp. 80-88. Gretler, A. (00) Fakten und Fragen zur internationalen sozialen Organisation der Bildungsforschung in Europa am Beispiel der European Educational Research Association (EERA), in R. Hofstetter & B. Schneuwly (Eds) Science(s) et l éducation 9e-0e siècles. Entre champs professionnels et champs disciplinaires/ Erziehungswissenschaft(en) 9--0. Jahrhundert. Zwischen Profession und Disziplin. Frankfurt Am Main: Peter Lang. Hokka, S. (00) OECD and the National Education Policy of Finland, paper presented at the ECER Pre-Conference 00, Hamburg. Kallo, J. (00) Five Lessons on Human Capital in OECD Education Policies, paper presented at the ECER Pre-Conference 00, Hamburg. Keiner, E. (999) Erziehungswissenschaft 947-990: Eine empirische und vergleichende Untersuchung zur kommunikativen Praxis einer Disziplin. Weinheim: Beltz, Deutscher Studienverlag. Keiner, E. (00) Organisation Wissen Macht. Netzwerke als neue Form wissenschaftlicher Kommunikation, in M. Caruso & H-E. Tenorth (Eds) Internationalisierung: Semantik und Bildungssystem in vergleichender Perspektive [Internationalisation: comparing educational systems and semantics]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Lawn, M. (00) Borderless Education: imagining a European education space in a time of brands and networks, in A. Nóvoa & M. Lawn (Eds) Fabricating Europe: the formation of an education space. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lawn, M. & Lingard, B. (00) Constructing a European Policy Space in Educational Governance: the role of transnational policy actors, European Educational Research Journal, () pp. 90-07. 66
ECER S SPACE IN EUROPE Nóvoa, A. (000) The Restructuring of the European Educational Space: changing relationships among states, citizens, and educational communities, in T.S. Popkewitz (Ed.) Educational Knowledge: changing relationships between the state, civil society, and the educational community. Albany: State University of New York Press. Nóvoa, A. & Lawn, M. (Eds) (00) Fabricating Europe: the formation of an education space. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ozga, J. (00) Europeanising Education Research: networks and experts, paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research 00, Hamburg. Plomp, T. (99) Educational Research in Europe: possibilities for facilitating exchange of information and researchers. Feasibility Study (for the) European Commission. Report prepared for the Commission of the European Communities/Task Force Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth. Enschede: University of Twente (quoted by Gretler 00). Sirota, R., Zay, D., Lawn, M. & Keiner, E. (00) European Networking in Education, European Educational Research Journal, (), pp. 566-59. MARTINA KENK is currently working in a small-scale research project, comparing the quality and success of two institutions offering a second chance for achieving a school degree in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Since her diploma in Science of Education in 00, she has worked as an academic assistant in the Institute for General Science of Education at the University of Frankfurt. She is interested in comparative research on the sciences of education in Europe as well as the discourses and processes of Europeanization. Her current dissertation project carries the working title, Knowledge and networks for a European educational space. New forms and ways of production and distribution of educational knowledge. Correspondence: Martina Kenk, Weberstrasse 77, D-608 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (martinakenk@web.de). 67