As part of the RED project, we developed a tool called InfraReveal. It tracks and visualizes the digital infrastructure that powers educational technology. By analyzing the metadata attached to data packets—those tiny bits of data that zip across the internet—we can see which companies are involved and how these services are interconnected. In the article, Epistemologies of data visualisations: on producing certainties, geographies and digitalities in critical educational research, we critically examine our own development and use of InfraReveal in relation to three themes:

The Illusion of Certainty

Data visualizations like those in InfraReveal can give a sense of certainty. But this clarity can sometimes mask the messiness of the underlying data. We need to remember that visualizations are simplifications, and they can hide the complexities and uncertainties of the real world. In our work, we’ve chosen to reflect on these uncertainties, reminding users that what they see is a representation, not the full picture

Mapping Our World

Maps are a common feature in data visualizations, but they come with their own set of stories and biases. They can emphasize certain geographies and reinscribe power hierarchies, shaping our understanding of the world. With InfraReveal, we’ve had to balance the familiar with the critical, using traditional maps while trying to highlight global data inequalities.

The Challenge of Participation

Creating tools like InfraReveal is a collaborative effort. However, participation varies across different contexts. What works in one place may not in another, as local norms and infrastructures influence the use and understanding of these technologies. We’ve tried to navigate these differences, ensuring our visualizations resonate with diverse audiences.

In the end, data visualizations are not just about presenting information; they’re about engaging with the world. By understanding the stories they tell, we can foster a more nuanced and inclusive approach to interpreting the digital landscape of education. With InfraReveal, we’re striving to reveal the underlying data practices in education and question the inequalities they may perpetuate. It’s a balancing act of being critical and reflexive, using these tools to uncover new insights while acknowledging their limitations. Read more about our journey here…

Introduction

The aim of this study is to examine datafication in schools by unpacking the arrangements of policy and practice. Producing digital data has become a central and integral part of daily school practice in many countries, and a shift toward data-driven schooling has been set in motion by a range of policy initiatives targeting digitalization. Teachers, educational leaders, and administrative staff are encouraged and expected to use digital software, leading to witting and unwitting generation of digital data while performing both pedagogical and more mundane tasks, such as ordering school supplies. A requirement for a seamless flow of digital data is interoperability, which is also a central implicit finding in this study. Deriving from the Latin words ‘inter’ (between) and ‘opus’ (work) interoperability defines the ability of different technical systems and platforms to ‘work together’ by sharing digital data with one another. While a technical term, interoperability is viewed as sociotechnical in the present study, since human actions such as manual translations from one system to another are regularly required to support and achieve it. In that sense, system, software, and data interoperability have the capacity to facilitate and re-configure every-day school practice and affect teachers’ work. However, while often described in terms of increasing efficiency and reducing teachers’ work, digital data interoperability has come under scrutiny. While providing the benefit of a seamless integration of services, interoperability simultaneously opens up for the re-configuration of pedagogical practices according to the organizing principles of commercial actors while pushing the processes of privatization and commercialization forward (Kerssens & Van Dijck, 2021). European perspectives have further underlined the intensification of data-driven accountability and performativity for teachers (Roberts-Holmes, 2015) and the governing capacities of EdTech ecosystems, which simultaneously create, shape and influence educational, administrative and organizational practices (Williamson, 2017; Hartong & Förschler, 2019). While these studies among others have examined teachers’ practices in relation to datafication and the data infrastructure landscapes in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, there are open questions about the policy and practice relationships formed by the very wide range of actors implicated. In this respect, Sweden provides an interesting research context with a highly decentralized and market-driven school system that maintains a two-tier structure of public and private schools for compulsory education. Adding to existing work on the datafication of school practices in a European context, this study first asks: What relational arrangements of actors, objectives, political imaginations, laws, and infrastructures emerge in relation to school datafication? And second; what underlying problematizations are represented?

Method

Drawing on the case of Sweden, this study addresses policy as an assemblage, viewing educational policy as emerging from the relational arrangements of government agencies, private sector companies as well as material and discourses. Taking both human and non-human actors into consideration, the policy assemblage analysis in this study unpacks how multiple heterogeneous components are arranged and constituted (Savage, 2020). This highlights the emergent nature of policy by highlighting the relational arrangements of actors, objectives, political imaginations, laws, and infrastructures. Based on a large collection of sources related to the datafication and digitalization of schooling in Sweden, we selected three key policy documents and three interviews with stakeholders to foreground sociotechnical aspects. The sources were selected based on their topicality. In the case of the policy documents, prevalence and currency were also considered with the documents chosen being published between the years 2016 and 2019. One of the key texts for this analysis is the national action plan produced by the quasi-national Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions for the digitalization of the school system (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2019). In addition, national (Ministry of Education, 2017) and regionally focused documents (Swedish Data Protection Authority, 2019) were included. In the case of the interviews, three stakeholders working at various levels within the educational system were selected. The six sources were then analyzed using the analytical approach called What’s the problem represented to be? (WPR) developed by Bacchi (2009). This analytical lens was chosen to allow the unpacking and problematizing of underlying logics. Policy was not viewed as a solution to problems that exist outside of politics and the critical reading engaged in following the WPR approach allowed for questions to be asked about the reasoning behind problem representations and their effects. Following Bacchi (2009), in the first analytical step, problem representations, the underlying assumptions and genealogies of the identified problem representations were analyzed. Interoperability, as the exemplified problem representation, was then further analyzed with a focus on the evoked silences as well as the subjectification and discursive and lived effects of what the problem is represented to be.

Conclusion

An assemblage perspective offers ways of unpacking sociotechnical aspects of the datafication discourse. In this study, the approach revealed the issue of interoperability as a key concern. Lack of interoperability is presented as a problem for school digitalization, but there are also struggles and concerns associated with achieving the ideals of interoperability in practice. The lived effects of interoperability become visible in the expectation of frictionless data flow between systems while limited technical interoperability increases workloads as teachers are forced to use several tools or communication channels simultaneously to complete seemingly simple tasks such as taking attendance. Here, emerging interoperability standards (Swedish Standards Institute, 2020) for school platforms and attendance registers mean attendance could be further datafied and streamlined. However, interoperability is also accompanied by discursive and subjectification effects, since interoperability and data standards enact categories and distinctions to which schools like other institutions adapt (Bowker & Star, 2000). This may dramatically change classroom practices as they adapt to the organizing
principles of generating digital data and interoperability (Kerssens & Van Dijck, 2021). While technical systems and interoperability standards are set up to smooth out the production and sharing of data and rationalize teacher work, the analysis in this study suggests that they may not necessarily be directed to or beneficial for teaching practice or pedagogical considerations, as teachers may not be positioned as the recipients of the value derived from the data produced. Overall, the discourse of interoperability promotes ideals of efficiency and ease-of-use, but the data here shows a clear mismatch and tension between the intended purposes of data practices and their uses and outcomes from a more holistic view of teacher practices.

References

Bacchi, C. L. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson.

Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences (First paperback edition). The MIT Press.

Hartong, S., & Förschler, A. (2019). Opening the black box of data-based school monitoring: Data infrastructures, flows and practices in state education agencies. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 205395171985331.

Kerssens, N., & Dijck, J. van. (2021). The platformization of primary education in The Netherlands. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–14.

Ministry of Education. (2017). National digitalisation strategy for the school system.

Roberts-Holmes, G. (2015). The ‘datafication’ of early years pedagogy: ‘If the teaching is good, the data should be good and if there’s bad teaching, there is bad data.’ Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 302–315.

Savage, G. C. (2020). What is policy assemblage? Territory, Politics, Governance, 8(3), 319–335.

Selwyn, N. (2020). The human labour of school data: Exploring the production of digital data in schools. Oxford Review of Education, 1–16.

Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. (2019). # skolDigiplan- National action plan for digitization of the school system, Skoldigiplan.

Swedish Data Protection Authority. (2019). Oversight according to the EU Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 – facial recognition for attendance of students

Swedish Standards Institute. (2020). Swedish Standards 12000:2020—Information Management—Interface for Information Exchange between School Administration Processes.

Williamson, B. (2017). Learning in the ‘platform society’: Disassembling an educational data assemblage. Research in Education, 24.

Photo by Alex wong on Unsplash

Every-day educational practices have increasingly become data-driven and data-intensive: Digital systems, platforms and technologies have become omnipresent and teachers, educational leaders, and administrative staff are encouraged to use digital software. However, the usefulness of platforms, systems and technologies heavily rely on a seamless flow of digital data, which is ensured by interoperability. Deriving from the Latin words ‘inter’ (between) and ‘opus’ (work) interoperability defines the ability of different technical systems and platforms to ‘work together’ by sharing digital data with one another. However, establishing wide-scale data interoperability involves solving a range of challenges, including technical difficulties as well as the necessity of a data interoperability standard, agreed-upon by numerous data actors, such as commercial and non-commercial actors, programmers, developers and final users.

Within the educational sector, the establishment of data interoperability is attributed with a number of benefits, including increased efficiency and reducing teachers’ work. Streamlining the communication between educational systems, within and between schools may reduce costs and increase productivity, while simultaneously omitting the necessity of a human intermediary. Moreover, interoperability also enables a seamless flow of digital data about individual student’s schooling trajectory, spanning from administrative information such as enrolment and attendance to learning, performative and behavioral aspects. However, data interoperability has come under scrutiny. While providing the benefit of a seamless integration of services, interoperability potentially opens up for the re-configuration of pedagogical practices according to the organizing principles of influential and dominant commercial actors in the EdTEch sphere, pushing forward the processes of privatization and commercialization (Kerssens & Van Dijck, 2021). Moreover, as a recurrent theme, the safety of potentially sensitive data when shared with numerous actors has been scrutinized. Connected to this, the de-contextualization of educational data also raises questions about the interpretation of digital data and their implications (Loukissas, 2019. Interoperability is further accompanied by discursive and subjectification effects, since interoperability and data standards create standards and classification to which schools adapt (Bowker & Star, 2000).

Also in Sweden, as a high-tech and highly digitalized country, interoperability in the educational sector has been in focus. Overall, the Swedish discourse on interoperability promotes ideals of efficiency and ease-of-use, and interoperability issues have been presented as an impediment for the ongoing digitalization processes in educational contexts. According to the Swedish government (2017, p. 4), “[it is] important with coordination and collaboration on standards and shared digital solutions within the school sector, and with relevant partners in the public sector and industry. In that way, double work can be avoided, and it can be ensured that different systems can work together and communicate with each other (interoperability)”. Interoperability, presented here as a technical standard and a government strategy, addresses infrastructural governance issues around balancing teacher’s work also ensuring digital access as a compensating for unequal access to digital infrastructures in educational contexts.

One practical example for the lack of technical interoperability, which increases workloads and shifts datafied work for teachers in Swedish schools, is attendance keeping. The necessity to convert attendance into the correct digital format for different platforms may require manual translation to cope with the lack of interoperability between technical systems. Despite being a technical term, interoperability in this context is rather a sociotechnical one, since human actions are regularly required to support and achieve technical interoperability, by e.g. manual translations from one system to another. In that sense, software, data and interoperability have the capacity to facilitate and re-configure every-day school practice and affect teachers’ work in Sweden. However, emerging interoperability standards (Swedish Standards Institute, 2020) between school platforms and attendance registers mean that data in educational contexts, such as attendance could be further datafied and streamlined. This may be an effective way to produce data, but it may dramatically change and re-configure classroom practice, potentially adapting to the organizing principles of generating digital data and interoperability (Kerssens & Van Dijck, 2021).

The push for interoperability is certainly based on good intentions; to make access and use of digital platforms technologies more equally and easily accessible and to balance workload. However, a seamless integration has its drawbacks. Frictionless interoperability creates technical lock-ins that make the use and work of alternative platforms increasingly intricate (Kerssens & Van Dijck, 2021). In addition, lock-ins potentially expand powers of prominent platform providers as dominant intermediary gatekeepers like Google and Microsoft, progressively mobilizing users into their domains and platform ecosystems.

Bibliography:
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences (First paperback edition). The MIT Press.

Kerssens, N., & Van Dijck, J. (2021). The platformization of primary education in The Netherlands. 15.

Loukissas, Y. A. (2019). All data are local: Thinking critically in a data-driven society. The MIT Press.

Swedish Government (2017) Nationell digitaliseringsstrategi för skolväsendet. [National Digitalisation Strategy for the Educational System]

Swedish Standards Institute. (2020). Swedish Standards 12000:2020—Information Management—Interface for Information Exchange between School Administration Processes.

Photo by Xavier von Erlach on Unsplash

By contrast, at the senior high school level, instruction for all students has been delivered online. For this level, learning management systems were already commonplace before the crisis with these platforms acting as centres of coordination for classroom activities. Moving to distance education, these platforms and the content on them continue to take a key role, but in many ways, it is video-conferencing platforms that have become substitutes for the classroom. In this sense, the model for senior high school instruction centered around face-to-face lessons complimented by self-study with textbooks and other material resources has not dramatically changed for most subject areas without practical moments.

2 – Has the Covid-19 crisis changed the data policies in education in your country?
As a European Union member, Sweden has a relatively strong data privacy protection regime nationally that follows the General Data Protection Regulation. However, the school system can be characterised as highly decentralized and as such, responsibility for data policy specific for schooling is largely decided at the level of municipalities, not-for profit schools and commercial school companies. Before the crisis, several influential voices called for better national oversight of the relationship between schools and commercial internet platform providers, but this discussion has been somewhat quieted. As is the case in many countries, the crisis in Sweden engendered what can be described as ‘fast policy’ making with examples of local schooling providers rapidly setting rules and guidelines for the use of new digital platforms while signing new contracts with commercial providers to increase the capacity of their infrastructure.

3 – How have remote emergency education provisions (e.g. emergency technological infrastructures, hardware, software, home visits, other new practices) affected teachers and students from marginalized populations in your country? Which technological infrastructure do they have access to?
Even in Sweden with over 90% of the population with broadband internet access, issues of marginalization exist. At the level of technical access, many students have access to school provided laptops or tablets, but not all do and not all have access to a fast internet connection. Issues of hardware access and connection have been present in northern rural areas of the country, but the lack of school closures for younger children has limited the effects.

Beyond technical access, other issues of marginalization have been reported in the media. In particular, the issue of students lacking a study space despite internet access has been raised in relation to some communities in the inner suburbs of the large cities. Contrary to the general norm in Sweden, some students in these areas live in multi-generation family arrangements and often in relatively small apartments. In response, some senior high schools have opened spaces for those students who lack a place to do their schoolwork.

4 – Would you speak of a “pandemics pedagogy” (Williamson et al, 2020) in your country? If there is one, which features does it have?
If there is such a thing as a “pandemics pedagogy” in Sweden it would be distinctly different in primary and junior schools to senior high schools. While schools for younger children have maintained some degree of normalcy by staying open, they have adapted to having large numbers of children kept home for showing symptoms of illness. At the same time, teachers have been able to assume that parents can create accounts on the many instructional content platforms that have been offering free access during the crisis. This may have produced a kind of parallel semi-formal pedagogy.

By contrast, a “pandemics pedagogy” of senior high school in Sweden would likely imply a rather traditional instructional approach, perhaps more traditional than that before the crisis. Synchronous video-based sessions have become a dominant mode of instruction as they allow traditional teaching to be digitized with relatively little adaptation. This is an understandable choice given the available infrastructure in Sweden and the time constraints associated with the rapid switch to distance education. However, synchronous video can be rather limiting in terms of the types of instructional activities it supports, potentially leading to more traditional lecture style teaching.

Photo by United Nations COVID-19 Response (top) and Sharon McCutcheon (below) on Unsplash