Education governance and digitization: Inherent conflicts and potential safeguards for a new social contract
Prospects, ISSN: 1573-9090, Vol: 54, Issue: 2, Page: 323-329
2024
- 3Citations
- 82Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
This article highlights inherent conflicts between technology industry incentives and a new social contract for education, while arguing for safeguards to mitigate the risk of technology industry engagement in education governance. Business strategies often utilize economies of scale, standardization, and internationalization to maximize profits. These strategies are diametrically opposed to education as a public endeavor and as a reflection of humanity’s diverse ways of knowing and being in various local contexts. Technology industry strategies tend to emphasize the disruption of sectors and encourage entrepreneurialism and innovation with an emphasis on outputs, measurement, and impact. These strategies often recast the “good” of education from public to private returns. While appropriate engagement of non-state technology actors in education governance can offer solutions in support of global education goals and a new social contract for education, I argue that such mobilization is multi-sided, simultaneously pushing through innovative, yet untested, education agendas. The article identifies potential risks to systems of public education and reflects upon safeguards, which fall into two main categories: issues of transparency, accountability and legitimacy; and issues of technology management and governance. Proactively addressing inherent conflicts and potential safeguards, I argue, is a key step to identifying ways to strengthen motivations for corporations to forge meaningful long-term investment in a new social contract for education and for the development of education governance structures that are equitable and democratic.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know