Research that counts: OECD statistics and ‘policy entrepreneurs’ impacting on Australian adult literacy and numeracy policy

Abstract

This paper analyses research that has impacted on Australia's most recent national policy document on adult literacy and numeracythe National Foundation Skills Strategy (NFSS). The paper draws in part on Lingard's 2013 paper entitled 'The impact of research on education policy in an era of evidence-based policy' in which he outlines the distinction between research for and of policy. The former is privileged in education policy formation and comprises largely statistical evidence (i.e. 'policy as numbers') often drawing on the globalised authority of organisations such as the OECD, along with research commissioned by policy makers and undertaken by 'policy entrepreneurs'. Research of policy represents academically oriented research, which is often qualitative, seeks new knowledge, and may challenge the status quo. Through an analysis of studies cited in and thus impacting on the NFSS, we detail the main authors of research for policy and indicate their ideological commitment to the neoliberal agenda that now dominates the adult literacy and numeracy field in Australia and other OECD countries. Research of policy in this context has had little policy impact, but is nevertheless promoted by the authors as a means of countering the current reductionist discourses of adult literacy and numeracy reflected in national policy.

The imagined learner in adult literacy education policy research: An international comparison

“…These adjustments involve changing resources, priorities and ideologies. Shifts are also influenced by changes in transnational documents intended to drive policy and practice (Black and Yasukawa 2016;Hamilton and Pitt 2011;Kenea 2014;Robinson-Pant 2010;Smythe 2015;Walter 2002). This means that adults' experiences with literacy education are shaped for them by outside forces rather than by themselves, or even with a focus on their needs.…”

“…In the current turn towards neoliberalism and human capital development, adults seeking to improve their skills can also be likened to game tokens that can be collected and, when their numbers grow, counted as success (e.g. Black and Yasukawa 2016;Hamilton and Pitt 2011;Hamilton 2014;Smythe 2015).…”

“…It also to some extent lets governments off the hook. In this scenario, only measurable outcomes that can be compared matter; success is typically described in terms of the large-scale assessment results described above (Black and Yasukawa 2016) or employment rather than improved literacy skills (Ade-Ojo and Duckworth 2017). This policy character type suggests a standardised instructional approach for which outcomes can be measured; there is then a focus on accountability, monitoring, and demands for return on investment in terms of human capital development in spite of often unstable and limited funding that decreases the potential impact of the policy (e.g.…”