The Fabrications and Travels of a Knowledge-Policy Instrument

Abstract

This article sets forth the main elements of the conceptual framework for the overall approach to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) taken in this special issue. PISA is here examined as a (knowledge for policy) regulatory instrument made by intertwined cognitive and social practices, and involving multidirectional flows of knowledge and policy elements. Additionally-and using materials from a study on the fabrication of PISA-the article gives closer attention to the process of gathering and coordinating the social worlds involved in the making of the instrument, to the plasticity of knowledge for policy and to the fictions-which the instrument carries-regarding education and its governing practices. As a whole, the article relates to the ubiquity of PISA-that is, its conspicuous albeit not similar presence in various geopolitical territories and discursive spaces. Fabricated under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, by bringing together individuals and organisations from various social spaces, its materials and texts generated often reach national and local policy and knowledge contexts, where different social groups have interests in them and are using them differently, though attached to PISA's dicta on regulatory processes.

PISA truth effects: the construction of low performance

“…Therefore, they argue that knowledge cannot be assessed on an individual basis or just in written isolation (e.g., Roth, 2007;Schoultz, Säljö, & Wyndhamn, 2001). Furthermore, the term competence implies a rational, individualized view of knowledge, in addition to its standards of 'utility' in the knowledge-based economy (Carvalho, 2012). According to the PISA framework, the knowledge measurement is 'informed, but not constrained by the denominator of national curricula' (OECD, 2006, p. 7).…”

“…In spite of the critics, the PISA machinery endures and the edu-political communities of Europe and elsewhere continuously repeat the importance of its evidenced results and the necessity of taking it into account (Carvalho, 2012;Grek, 2009; as well as following the 'good examples' of performance (Simons, 2014). This is particularly the case in areas where 'low performance' is a 'fact', as in the current Swedish PISA debate.…”

“…In addition to the critique from scholars within the psychometric research community about assessment validity (Goldstein, 2004;Kreiner, 2011; see also Morgan, 2009, pp. 194-195), it is argued that the kind of international comparisons to which PISA adheres rely on assumptions about similarities in the educational systems that hardly exist (Fertig, 2004).In spite of the critics, the PISA machinery endures and the edu-political communities of Europe and elsewhere continuously repeat the importance of its evidenced results and the necessity of taking it into account (Carvalho, 2012;Grek, 2009; as well as following the 'good examples' of performance (Simons, 2014). This is particularly the case in areas where 'low performance' is a 'fact', as in the current Swedish PISA debate.…”

Professores Do Pisa: A Esperança E a Realização Da Educação

“…A huge number of actors from different countries are also involved in PISA activities, including public and private research centres, national and international policymakers, different OECD professionals, and various bureaucrats and technicians. PISA is therefore a conglomerate of activities, objects, and actors that together generate diverse activities in different social spaces at different levels (CARVALHO, 2012). Consequently, PISA activities and their effects are diverse, and not always as linear as they might first appear.…”

“…Thus, this article investigates how the teacher is constructed, or even "fabricated" (cf. CARVALHO, 2012), and narratively expressed in the PISA sphere.…”