Abstract
Purpose
This article results from a survey on national and international research articles published from 1947 to 2018 that aimed to produce a theoretical framework and description of education governance.
Design/methodology/approach
The study was based on bibliographic research techniques. Its bibliometric analysis (Pritchett, 2001) focused on three structural indicators: 1) keywords, 2) most relevant journals and 3) most productive researchers. A survey was made targeting national and international research articles on education governance published from 1947 to 2018 as available on Scopus.
Findings
The survey pointed out the fundamentals of the education governance dimensions as posited in Hufty’s (2011) Governance Analytical Framework, namely: problems, social norms, actors, nodal points and processes.
Originality/value
The study provides the theoretical framework for establishing operational definitions of aforementioned dimensions that can be used in an education governance assessment instrument.
Keywords
Citation
Soares Furtado Oliveira, A., Nunes, A. and Guerra, M. (2023), "Analyzing the literature on education governance over the last 71 years", Revista de Gestão, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 2-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/REGE-03-2020-0016
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Anderson Soares Furtado Oliveira, André Nunes and Mariana Guerra
License
Published in Revista de Gestão. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
In 2015 the United Nations (UN) established the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG No. 4 (or SDG4) stands out because of its ambitious purpose: to ensure equitable, quality inclusive education and lifelong learning opportunities for all (UN, 2017b). The goals have not been reached yet for nearly any of the indicators within the SDG4 (UN, 2017a), which entails that data remain to be produced or no international standard has been defined for measuring the various constructs of quality education. Part of the challenges ahead includes implementing governance structures in the education system (Møller & Skedsmo, 2015; Vidovich & Currie, 2011; Woelert & Millar, 2013).
In Brazil the main legal frameworks guaranteeing access to education are 1) the Constitution (Constituição da, 1988), 2) the Guidelines and Frameworks for National Education (Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional, 1996 – Act No. 9,394, as of 1996) and 3) the National Education Plan (Nacional de Educação, 2014 – Act No. 13,005, as of 2014). Brazil has advanced toward universal access to education, but the high rates of failure, drop-out and absenteeism and the students’ low performance in cognitive assessments have been clear indicators of quality problems in the Brazilian education system (Soares, 2005).
According to the UNEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2015) and to Sayed and Ahmed (2015), the quality of education is directly related to a country’s development. Incidentally, the World Bank (1992) has stressed the importance of improving social conditions, especially through health and basic education, to achieve long-lasting sustainable, equitable growth.
In fact, guaranteeing access to quality education has gained relevance in the international education agenda (UNESCO, 2015; Sayed & Ahmed, 2015). However, few Brazilian studies have focused on education governance, including Fernandes and Rodrigues (2017), Robertson (2013), Robertson and Verger (2012), Dale (2010) and Amos (2010). In contrast, several studies have been carried out in other countries, including: Norway (Møller & Skedsmo, 2015; Magalhães, Veiga, Ribeiro, Sousa, & Santiago, 2013), Sweden (Bunar, 2011), Armenia (Dobbins & Khachatryan, 2015), Germany (Schiersmann, 2014; Magalhães et al., 2013), Switzerland (Schiersmann, 2014; Magalhães et al., 2013), England, Netherlands, Italy, Portugal (Magalhães et al., 2013), the United States (Vidovich & Currie, 2011), Hong Kong (Ng, 2013) and Australia (Woelert & Millar, 2013; Vidovich & Currie, 2011). Such studies have shown the relevance of education governance for quality education. As a matter of fact, successful cases of education governance, especially in Australia, Norway and Sweden, have been widely addressed and cited in scientific research.
This article aims to identify the main studies on education governance in Brazilian and international scientific literature, as the first step towards designing a measurement instrument for assessing governance in Brazilian basic education. It builds on the assumption that such an instrument requires a clear definition of the fundamental dimensions of the education governance process (see Pasquali, 2009).
To this end, this study used the Governance Analytical Framework (GAF), which targets governance processes, but lacks application in the field of education (Hufty, 2011). This model comprises five dimensions of analysis, namely: problems, social norms, actors, nodal points and processes (Hufty, 2011) (see section 2.2).
The study used bibliographic research techniques to identify a consistent theoretical framework and characterize education governance. Bibliometric analysis (Pritchett, 2001) was conducted to identify the main topics and scientific output.
This article is organized into five sections, starting with this introduction. Section 2 presents the governance construct and dimensions of GAF. Section 3 describes the methods, which were built on Zupic and Čater (2015) and Pritchard (1969). Section 4 reports on the analysis of keywords, journals and the most relevant authors and articles; it also provides the fundamentals of the GAF-based dimensions of the education governance process (subsection 4.5). Section 5 contains the final remarks.
2. Review of the literature
2.1 The governance construct
Levi-Faur (2012) state, that the term “governance” has been approached in at least four different ways in the literature (namely, as a structure, a process, a mechanism or a strategy), with the predominance of its understanding as a structure. Levi-Faur (2012) defines governance as a system of rules or institutionalized modes of social coordination, with this social coordination taking place at different governance levels and through different topologies of governance (Coward, 2010). The expression “education governance” was coined by Amos (2010) to refer to the set of measures aimed to ensure education quality in schools.
Education governance is an incipient field of study (Coward, 2010). Few attempts have been made to define this expression, but several authors point to its similarities with health governance, especially regarding the interdependent relationships between areas such as institutional governance, organizational development and risk management. Most of the literature on the topic is related to education systems or higher education institutions. Most studies originate from the United States and address elementary and middle schools or the management of state and local education systems. Besides, most studies indicate that satisfactory education standards and quality assurance processes stem from good education governance (see Coward, 2010, for further details).
A similar idea is defended by Sarrico, Veiga and Amaral (2013), who sought to describe governance in Portuguese higher education institutions and how governance arrangements impact the mechanisms of quality and quality assurance in higher education. Their major results show that the national and institutional characteristics of governance and management can influence the implementation of quality policies and procedures and, eventually, the improvement of quality.
The expression “multi-level governance” was first used in 1992 to describe the multi-level decision-making approach of the European Union’s cohesion policy, which aimed to converge supranational, national, regional and local actors (Sbragia, 1992; Hooghe, 1996; Liesbet & Gary, 2003; Bache, 2012). Multi-level governance addresses the increasingly complex relationships between actors from the public, private and voluntary sectors, organized at different territorial levels (George, 2004). Furthermore, it raises questions about the efficiency and accountability of contemporary decision-making at public level.
Considering the GAF, this article builds on the concept of “governance” as posited by Hufty (2011). It concerns social interactions, formal and informal collective decision-making processes and the elaboration of norms of social control in matters of public interest. It also considers the term “governance” as applicable in both public and private sectors (Rhodes, 2007).
2.2 Governance analytical framework (GAF)
Hufty (2011) proposes five GAF dimensions, namely: problems, social norms, actors, nodal points and processes. The latter (i.e. processes) are applied by researchers from different fields to analyze governance processes, mainly in public health, product chains, post-conflict water supply, biodiversity conservation, discourse analysis and deforestation.
Problems is a dimension related to the issues involved in a given situation. As this is a social construction, problems are characterized by social actors according to their social status and habitus (Bourdieu, 1993). More specifically, each actor seeks to ensure that their standpoint prevail building on 1) the nature of the problem and 2) the rules of the game for the negotiation process (Hufty, 2011). In the present study, the collective problems proposed by Hufty (2011) refer to a community’s education demands to be prioritized and solved through the governance process.
Social norms is a dimension based on values or beliefs. It includes the “rules of the game” and the norms that underlie them (meta-governance) to guide and sanction the actions of individuals or groups within a society’s spaces of power (Hufty, 2011). Norms involve both prescription (i.e. what should or should not be done) and sanction, which can be either 1) positive, reinforcing behavior, or 2) negative, restricting behavior (Hufty, 2011).
Actors, the focus of GAF, is a dimension related to individuals or groups of individuals whose behaviors are guided by their nature, power, interests, ideas, and history (Hufty, 2011). It is related to the quality of representation of interested parties impacted by the governance-derived decision-making. Cunha, Almeida, Faria and Ribeiro (2011) address a multidimensional strategy for assessing policy councils and suggest an approach involving the analysis of legitimacy, participatory dynamics and exogenous factors. An important aspect of this dimension is the technical and political training of board members for the full exercise of their functions (Tatagiba, 2002). It requires investigating the plurality of representational segments, criteria for choosing representatives, composition of boards and equal status and qualification of members.
Nodal points are the places of interaction (physical or virtual) between actors in the governance process (Hufty, 2011). A board, such as the state and municipal boards of education, is one of the main spaces for different actors to participate and express their opinions (Tatagiba, 2005), thus influencing the decision-making process. It involves, for instance, analyzing individual service channels for citizens, with individual participation mechanisms being those devices that allow citizens to express their preferences about services and goods, which are offered directly by the municipality or regulated by the municipal government (Cortes, 2011). Citizens can use such channels to file complaints, assess quality or express their level of satisfaction with goods and services, as well as to provide suggestions or make propositions. This category includes user satisfaction surveys over the phone or via internet, and especially through ombudsmanship.
Finally, organizational processes (or workflows) are the actors’ set of activities and interactions in the nodal points over time (Hufty, 2011). This set starts with the identification and delimitation of a problem and ends when a decision is made to solve the problem. It may involve analyzing the decision-making process based on the rules that govern the institutions’ functioning, i.e. based on the modus operandi underlying the final decision-making (Vaz, 2011). The decision-making process is a relevant variable because it defines the rules for reaching a final consensus among participants. The rules for preparing the meeting agendas, for example, are important predictors of this dimension as they define which discussions will be conducted.
3. Methods
Articles published from 1947 to 2018 were retrieved from Scopus in October 2018. Following Zupic and Čater (2015), Scopus was selected because it 1) has a broad coverage (includes 37,979 studies), 2) enables data import by software packages commonly used in bibliometrics and 3) contains data for all cited authors, providing greater accuracy to authorship and co-citation analyses.
Data collection considered the following descriptors: educational governance OR education governance OR quality of education OR governance in education OR educational governance extracted from controlled vocabulary Thesaurus Brasileiro da Educação [Brazilian Education Thesaurus] (Brased). The years of publication and the type of production “research articles” were defined through the options limit pubyear and limit doctype, respectively, as available on Scopus.
Initially, 6,292 articles were found and handled in a sequence of steps (Table 1) for bibliometric analysis, following Zupic and Čater (2015) and Pritchard (1969). In this analysis, three criteria were used to assess scientific production, namely, structural indicators that measure 1) the most recurrent topics (keywords), 2) groups of journals that address the topic more frequently and 3) the researchers who produce the most on the topic. To map the theoretical, methodological, and thematic proximity of journals, two methods were used – coupling analysis and co-citation analysis (Marshakova, 1981) – through software VOSviewer.
The articles were then analyzed considering the following: 1) title, 2) abstract, 3) keywords and 4) conclusions, including research findings, agenda and limitations. In this stage, 58 articles were selected, a number which met the sample size prerequisite of a bibliometric study (1.31% of the total). Only two of these articles were produced by Brazilian authors. The criterion for inclusion and exclusion of articles was the relevance to the research topic, especially to the identification GAF analytical categories.
4. Results
4.1 Bibliometric analysis – keywords
Initially, 48 of the 11,495 keywords identified in the bibliometric analysis were selected, considering their absolute frequency in ascending order, followed by their number of occurrences. Coupling analysis through software VOSviewer provided the mapping shown in Figure 1, where the keywords are in English, the language of Scopus articles.
In Figure 1, the colors of the keyword circles indicate the cluster to which they belong. The orange cluster, with few occurrences, refers to governance in higher education (higher governance, higher education, universities, university governance, etc.). The green cluster groups papers on human and social development (civil society, corruption, development, equity, human, capital, instructions, knowledge, learning, poverty, etc.). The yellow cluster was delimited by keywords related to public policy (citizenship, culture, curriculum, democracy, education policy, OECD, participate, school governance, etc.). Finally, the green cluster refers to social norms, i.e. the establishment of “rules of the game” to define the behavior of actors within the governance process (autonomy, collaboration, decentralization, ethics, leadership, management, policy, power, etc.).
The results showed the unequal frequencies of keywords related to governance in higher education and basic education. The higher education group features a frequency of 80 or more papers, while the basic education group contains only eight papers. Considering that most of the articles are written by non-Brazilian authors – as mentioned above, only two articles are authored by Brazilians – this difference can be justified by the culture in different countries, especially in Europe, of funding research aimed at improving quality in higher education, and by the number of journals aimed at university governance.
Besides, the most frequent keywords refer to words that represent the cognitive structure of knowledge. These findings point to the thematic highlights and the trending topics over the years. The following topics are noted from 2013 onward: education policy, citizenship, neoliberalism, innovation, curriculum, collaboration, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), management and global governance.
4.2 Bibliometric analysis – journal relevance
The minimum number of 26 articles was chosen as a criterion for analyzing the main 20 journals that published the most on the topic, either nationally or internationally. Thus, the 20 most relevant journals, out of 2,504 publications, were grouped after a cluster analysis that used publication source as the unit of analysis and citation as the type of analysis.
To obtain a deeper analysis of publication structure, the bibliographic link between the main papers was observed through bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses. The bibliographic coupling, which measures the relationship between two papers based on their numbers of common references, shows the influence of the Journal of Education Policy and Higher Education in scientific production on education governance.
The Journal of Education Policy prioritizes the relationship between governance and public education policies, while Higher Education is focused on governance in tertiary education, a topic which is less relevant to the present study on governance in basic education. Figure 2 shows a strong coupling between Journal of Education Policy and European Educational Research Journal and between Higher Education and Tertiary Education and Management.
The strength of co-citation, which reveals the degree of association between pairs of papers (Small, 1973) was based on an analysis of the 20 journals (out of a total of 120,257 cited articles) with the highest degree of association. The results, shown in Figure 2, are color clustered and point to three large clusters.
The red cluster refers to journals on public policies, namely: Comparative Education, Comparative Education Review, European Educational Research Journal, European Journal of Education, Higher Education, Journal of Education Policy, Public Administration and Public Administration Review. The green cluster groups journals that predominantly belong to the field of management: Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Financial Economics and Strategic Management Journal. The blue cluster contains “multidisciplinary” journals: American Economic Review, BMJ, Lancet, Research Policy, Science and World Development.
The Journal of Education Policy stood out with 1,164 articles, followed by Higher Education with 831 articles. The editorial line of the journals, all of which chosen to address the present topic of study, seem to indicate that most of the published articles target education policy.
A further cluster analysis was carried out to identify the most productive journals, leading to 40 journals containing the highest number of articles on education governance from 1947 and 2018. The most productive journals found based on Brandford’s Law (which organizes journals in decreasing order of productivity) are consistent with the bibliographic coupling findings, especially: Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Higher Education and Journal of Education Policy. Journal of Education Policy seems to be the most relevant to the present study, as it prioritizes studies that address the relationship between governance and public education policies.
4.3 Bibliometric analysis – outstanding authors
To identify the most outstanding authors out of the 12,735 authors of the selected articles, the following procedures were used: first, identifying the most productive authors; then, identifying the number of citations per author of seven or more articles. This led to a set of 21 authors, i.e. 0.16% of the total (N = 12,735).
Bob Lingard was found to be the most productive author, followed by Bjørn Stensaker. The former is also among the most cited, which is indicative of his recognition as a relevant scholar in the scientific community. The authors with the highest volume of citations are Stephen John Ball, Bob Lingard and Jenny Ozga. The most outstanding authors in terms of co-authorship are Jenny Ozga, Sotiria Grek, Bob Lingard and Stephen John Ball. Thus, the most outstanding authors in terms of scientific production, acknowledgment by the scientific community and co-authorship are Jenny Ozga, Sotiria Grek and Bob Lingard.
Bob Lingard is a research fellow at the University of Queensland’ School of Education, Australia; Jenny Ozga is Professor Emerita of Sociology of Education at the University of Oxford, England; and Sotiria Grek is Senior Professor of European and Global Education Governance at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. These scholars are acknowledged in the scientific community for authoring and coauthoring articles on education governance, including Grek et al. (2009a), Grek, Lawn and Ozga (2009b), Ozga, Grek and Lawn (2009), Grek and Ozga (2009, 2010), Ozga (2012), Ozga, Baxter, Clarke, Grek, and Lawn (2013) and Grek, Lawn, Ozga, and Segerholm (2013).
4.4 Bibliometric analysis – most relevant articles
The most relevant articles were determined by their number of citations. Twenty-nine (out of 6,292 papers) were identified as the most relevant (i.e. cited) papers and classified according to their number of citations and co-authorships. The most cited article was Ozga (2009), with 221 citations, followed by Nórvoa and Yariv-Mashal (2003), cited 205 times. Figure 3 presents the authors’ connection through three color clusters with similar research profiles, i.e. those authors that cite similar bibliographic materials.
The red cluster, entitled “governance practices and mechanisms”, contains the most relevant authors that address strategies, network governance, and types of governance. Their studies focus on changes in the political process and on new methods of governing society. They also address a shift from centralized, bureaucratic government to network, multi-level governance. The green cluster, entitled “monitoring and assessment”, contains the most relevant authors of comparative analyses, algorithms and quantitative approaches that seek to highlight the growth of education governance and the use of data for this purpose.
The blue cluster, “education policy”, groups together the most relevant authors of studies on education policy in Europe, as well as on national education policy and education governance in the European Union. Their articles discuss public education policies at the global, national and local levels.
After that, the bibliometric indicator of yearly citations indicates which articles have been relevant in each year over the last 20 years. Over time, research on the emergence of “digital governance” in public education has become more relevant and especially connected to public education policy journals. With this new governance practice, organizations seek to delegate education-related decision-making to socio-algorithmic forms of power that predict and govern the actions of a collectivity (see Williamson, 2015). The most cited articles in recent years are Hartong (2016, 2017) and Lewis and Hardy (2017).
4.5 Fundamentals of education governance dimensions
Fifty-eight (out the 6,292 articles obtained in the previous stages) were selected considering their relevance to the topic, especially to identify GAF analytical categories. Based on Hufty’s framework (2011), an in-depth analysis of these 58 articles published from 1947 to 2018 (as retrieved from Scopus in October 2018) was carried out to identify the fundamentals of education governance dimensions.
Table 2 provides the fundamentals for each dimension, as well as their respective references.
The articles dealing with the actor dimension within education predominantly report on research on school and local community’s empowerment, autonomy and engagement in social control and democratic management. Some of them also discuss the participation of the third sector in education governance. The articles focused on the organizational processes (or workflows) dimension predominantly address transactional governance through institutional articulation with international organizations such as OECD. Some of them also tackle the functions of governance, monitoring and assessment, especially when it comes to using data and technologies in the analysis of education policies.
5. Final remarks
This article set out to identify the main studies on education governance in Brazilian and international scientific literature. The results showed the relevance of the Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Higher Education and Journal of Education Policy, journals which have featured studies on accountability, democracy, engagement, decentralization and power. Social participation and democratic management have also stood out as prominent topics in three large groups of discussions: governance in higher education, human and social development and public policy. The most prominent authors have been Jenny Ozga, Sotiria Grek and Bob Lingard, while the most cited articles have been Ozga (2009), Nórvoa and Yariv-Mashal (2003) and Hartong (2016).
It is apparent in this specialized literature that analyzing education governance processes could indicate factors that promote quality education in Brazil. According to Hufty’s (2011) GAF, the fundamentals displayed in Table 2 specify the “governance” construct and limit the semantic spaces of what should be addressed for assessing such a construct. Drawing on the fundamentals found in the present study, which are still in the theoretical pole according to Pasquali’s (2009) methodology, further research can eventually establish the operational definitions of the dimensions of a future instrument aimed to assess education governance in Brazil.
Based on the fundamentals and the articles collected and analyzed (covering a period of 71 years from 1947 to 2018) in this study, it seems that the formal social norms could explain, at least partially, the dynamics of the governance process. Further research should analyze such social norms, along with informal norms.
In addition, the governance dimensions that ensure the right to quality education are proposed in this article building on the literature. They are expected to lead to instruments that measure “good practices” of governance in Brazilian education systems, at the national, regional and local levels.
Figures
Fundamentals of education governance dimensions
| Stage | Objective | Criteria | Results |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identify research articles on the topic | Descriptors used on Scopus: educational governance OR education governance OR quality of education OR governance in education OR educational governance extracted from controlled vocabulary Thesaurus Brasileiro da Educação [Brazilian Education Thesaurus] (Brased) | 6,292 articles |
| 2 | Identify the most recurring topics | Absolute frequency in ascending order, followed by the number of occurrences | 48 out the 11,495 keywords retrieved were selected (see section 4.1) |
| 3 | Identify the group of journals that most frequently address the topic | Relevance upon analyzing cluster by coupling, co-citation and classification according to Brandford’s Law | 20 journals (see section 4.2) |
| 4 | Identify outstanding researchers | Identification of the most productive researchers, followed by identification of the number of citations per author among those who produced seven or more articles | 21 authors (out of 12,735) (see section 4.3) |
| 5 | Identify relevant articles | Number of citations and co-authorships | 29 articles out of the 6,292 most relevant (i.e. most cited) studies |
| 6 | Select reference articles to identify the fundamentals of the education governance dimensions | Relevance to the research topic, especially in the identification of GAF analytical categories | 58 articles published from 1947 to 2018 as retrieved from Scopus in October 2018 |
Source(s): The authors
Fundamentals of education governance dimensions
| Fundamentals of dimensions | References |
|---|---|
| Problems: they are the recognition of a topic as a public challenge to be tackled through the governance process, considering the current education status (diagnosis) and the desired status (goals and objectives). Problem identification stems from education stakeholders’ (both individuals and groups) demands, needs and expectations considering both the local context and the national coordination. This dimension comprises problem identification, prioritization, planning and disclosure | Avis (2009), Hufty (2009), Christensen, Homer and Nielson (2011), Gerrard et al. (2013), Trabelsi (2018) |
| Actors: they are the stakeholders (individuals or groups), either formal or informal (recognized by the authorities or not), impacted by the process or those that influence decision-making in the education governance process. Stakeholders have roles, powers and accountabilities in the governance process. Stakeholder analysis comprises the assessment of influence, need, engagement, interference, composition, training and technical support provided | Popkewitz and Lindblad (2000), Lindblad, Johannesson and Simola (2002), Edelenbos and Klijn (2005), Hodge and Greve (2007), Ball (2008), Hufty (2009), Ranson (2011), Bevir (2010), Williamson (2012), Edwards and Klees (2015), Oldham (2017) |
| Social norms: they refer to collective expectations about what is considered appropriate behavior in a society to provide for power, regulation, competences, accountability, legitimacy or sanctions to actors in the governance process | Ostrom (2000), Karlsen (2000), Cole and John (2001), Arnott and Menter (2007), Hufty (2009), Arnott and Ozga (2010), Goodwin and Grix (2011) |
| Nodal points: they are physical or virtual spaces where various problems, actors, workflows converge in time and space to make decisions, seal deals and create social norms applied throughout the education governance process. Such nodal points are characterized by trust between actors, social participation, effective decisions and transparent performance | Hofman, Hofman and Guldemond (2002), Nórvoa and Yariv-Mashal (2003), Hudson (2007), Hufty (2009), Ranson (2012), Hooge and Honingh (2014), Lewis, Sellar and Lingard (2016), Theisens, Hooge and Waslander (2016) |
| Organizational processes (or workflows): they are a set of interdependent activities ordered in time and space for decision making in response to an education problem. Tasks and efforts must be intentionally aligned through continuous improvement of processes for identifying and prioritizing problems, monitoring and assessing results, managing interested parties, continuously training board members and promoting governance-driven institutional articulation | Lange and Alexiadou (2007), Hufty (2009), Grek et al. (2009a, b), Lange and Alexiadou (2010), Harris and Burn (2011), Peters (2012), Simkins (2014), Ozga (2016), Anderson and Donchik (2016), Williamson (2016), Lewis (2017), Lewis and Hardy (2017) |
Source(s): The authors
References
Amos, K. (2010). Governança e governamentalidade: Relação e relevância de dois conceitos científico-sociais proeminentes na educação comparada. Educação e Pesquisa, 36(spe), 23–38, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1517-97022010000400003 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Anderson, G. L., & Donchik, L. M. (2016). Privatizing schooling and policy making: The American legislative exchange council and new political and discursive strategies of education governance. Educational Policy, 30(2), 322–364.
Arnott, M., & Menter, I. (2007). The same but different? Post-devolution regulation and control in education in Scotland and England. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 250–265, Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.250 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Arnott, M., & Ozga, J. (2010). Education and Nationalism: The discourse of education policy in Scotland. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(3), 335–350, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01596301003786951 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Avis, J. (2009). Further education in England: The new localism, systems theory and governance. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 633–648, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903125137 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Bache, I. (2012). Multi-level governance in the European union. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 580–592). Oxford: Oxford University Press London.
Ball, S. J. (2008). New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Political Studies, 56(4), 747–765, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00722.x (accessed 19 September 2019).
Bevir, M. (2010). Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Governance (pp. 1–16). London: Sage Publications.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question (Vol. 18). London: Sage.
Bunar, N. (2011). Urban development, governance and education: The implementation of an area-based development initiative in Sweden. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2849–2864, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010391302 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Christensen, Z., Homer, D., & Nielson, D. L. (2011). Dodging adverse selection: How donor type and governance condition aid’s effects on school enrollment. World Development, 39(11), 2044–2053, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.07.018 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Cole, A., & John, P. (2001). Governing education in England and France. Public Policy and Administration, 16(4), 106–125, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670101600409 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (1988). Brasília. Avaiable from: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm (accessed 18 September 2019).
Cortes, S. V. (2011). As diferentes instituições participativas existentes nos municípios brasileiros. In R. R. Pires, & Org (Eds.), Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação (pp. 137–149), Brasilia: IPEA. Available from: http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livro_dialogosdesenvol07.pdf (accessed 19 September 2019).
Coward, R. (2010). Educational governance in the NHS: A literature review. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 23(8), 708–717. Available from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09526861011081840/full/pdf?title=educational-governance-in-the-nhs-a-literature-review (accessed 19 September 2019).
Cunha, E. S. M., Almeida, D. C. R., Faria, C. F., & Ribeiro, U. C. (2011). Uma estratégia multidimensional de avaliação dos conselhos de políticas: Dinâmica deliberativa, desenho institucional e fatores exógenos. In R. R. Pires, & Org (Eds.), Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação (pp. 297–322), Brasilia: IPEA. Available from: http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livro_dialogosdesenvol07.pdf (accessed 19 September 2019).
Dale, R. (2010). A sociologia da educação e o estado após a globalização. Educação & Sociedade, 31(113), 1099–1120, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302010000400003 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Dobbins, M., & Khachatryan, S. (2015). Europeanization in the ‘wild east’? Analyzing higher education governance reform in Georgia and Armenia. Higher Education, 69(2), 189–207, Available from: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10734-014-9769-2.pdf on September 18, 2019.
Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E.-H. (2005). Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: A comparative analysis of six interactive processes in The Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 417–446, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui049 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Edwards, D. B. Jr., & Klees, S. J. (2015). Unpacking ‘participation’ in development and education governance: A framework of perspectives and practices. Prospects, 45(4), 483–499. doi: 10.1007/s11125-015-9367-9.
Fernandes, C.O., & Rodrigues, C.E.S.L. (2017). Governança educacional global e a gênese dos testes das habilidades socioemocionais. Estudo Sem Avaliação Educacional, 48(67), 214–235, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.18222/eae.v28i67.4006 (accessed 19 September 2019).
George, S. (2004). Multi-level governance and the European union. In I. Bache, & M. Flinder (Eds.), Multi-Level Governance (pp. 107–126). Oxford: Oxford University Press London.
Gerrard, J., Albright, J. W., Clarke, D. J., Clarke, D. M., Farrell, L., Freebody, P., & Sullivan, P. (2013). Researching the creation of a national curriculum from systems to classrooms. Australian Journal of Education, 57(1), 60–73, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944112471480 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Goodwin, M., & Grix, J. (2011). Bringing structures back in: The ‘governance narrative’, the ‘decentred approach’ and ‘asymmetrical network governance’ in the education and sport policy communities. Public Administration, 89(2), 537–556, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01921.x (accessed 19 September 2019).
Grek, S., & Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data: Scotland, England and the European education policy space. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 937–952, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903275865 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Grek, S., & Ozga, J. (2010). Re-inventing public education: The new role of knowledge in education policy making. Public Policy and Administration, 25(3), 271–288, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076709356870 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B., Ozga, J., Rinne, R., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2009a). National policy brokering and the construction of the European education space in England, Sweden, Finland and scotland. Comparative Education, 45(1), 5–21, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060802661378 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Grek, S., Lawn, M., & Ozga, J. (2009b). O PISA e o debate das políticas na escócia: As narrativas políticas sobre a participação escocesa na comparação internacional. Sísifo – Revista de Ciências da Educação, 10(s.n.), 75–86. Available from: http://sisifo.ie.ulisboa.pt/index.php/sisifo/article/download/163/281 on September 23, 2019.
Grek, S., Lawn, M., Ozga, J., & Segerholm, C. (2013). Governing by inspection? European inspectorates and the creation of a European education policy space. Comparative Education, 49(4), 486–502, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2013.787697 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Harris, R., & Burn, K. (2011). Curriculum theory, curriculum policy and the problem of ill-disciplined thinking. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 245–261, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2010.498902 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Hartong, S. (2016). New structures of power and regulation within ‘distributed’ education policy – the example of the US common core state standards initiative. Journal of Education Policy, 31(2), 213–225, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1103903 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Hartong, S. (2017). Towards a topological Re-assemblage of education policy? Observing the implementation of performance data infrastructures and ‘centers of calculation’ in Germany. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(1), 134–150, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2017.1390665 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2007). Public-private partnerships: An international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 545–558, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00736.x (accessed 19 September 2019).
Hofman, R. H., Hofman, W. H. A., & Guldemond, H. (2002). School governance, culture, and student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(3), 249–272, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/136031202760217009 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Hooge, E., & Honingh, M. (2014). Are school boards aware of the educational quality of their schools?. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(4S), 139–154, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213510509 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Hooghe, L. (Ed.), (1996). Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.
Hudson, C. (2007). Governing the governance of education: The state strikes back?. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 266–282, Available from: https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.266 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Hufty, M. (2009). Participation, conservation and livelihoods: Evaluating the effectiveness of participatory approaches in protected areas. Available from: http://www.ruig-gian.org/research/projects/projectlgd4e4.html?ID=129 on September 19, 2019.
Hufty, M. (2011). Investigating policy processes: The governance analytical framework (GAF). In U. Wiesmann, & H. Hurni (Eds.), Research for Sustainable Development: Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives (pp. 403–424). Geographica Bernensia, Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2019005 on September 19, 2019.
Karlsen, G. E. (2000). Decentralized centralism: Framework for a better understanding of governance in the field of education. Journal of Education Policy, 15(5), 525–538, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/026809300750001676 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2007). New forms of European union governance in the education sector? A preliminary analysis of the open method of coordination. European Educational Research Journal, 6(4), 321–335, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680931003782819 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2010). Policy learning and governance of education policy in the EU. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 443–463, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680931003782819 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (1996). Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Brasilia. Available from: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L9394.htm on September 18, 2019.
Levi-Faur, D. (2012). From ‘big government’ to ‘big governance’ In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 3–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press London.
Lewis, S. (2017). Policy, Philanthropy and Profit: The OECD’s PISA for Schools and new modes of heterarchical educational governance. Comparative Education, 53(4), 518–537, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2017.1327246 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Lewis, S., & Hardy, I. (2017). Tracking the Topological: The effects of standardised data upon teachers’ practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(2), 219–238, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2016.1254157 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Lewis, S., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2016). PISA for schools: Topological rationality and new spaces of the OECD’s global educational governance. Comparative Education Review, 60(1), 27–57. doi:10.1086/684458.
Liesbet, H., & Gary, M. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243. Available from: http://hooghe.web.unc.edu/files/2016/09/hooghe.marks_.unravelingcentralstate.apsr_.2003.pdf on September 19, 2019.
Lindblad, S., Johannesson, I. A., Simola, H. (2002). Education governance in transition: An introduction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(3), 237–245, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383022000005652 (acccessed 19 September 2019).
Magalhães, A., Veiga, A., Ribeiro, F.M., Sousa, S., & Santiago, R. (2013). Creating a common grammar for European higher education governance. Higher Education, 65(1), 95–112, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9583-7 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Marshakova, I.V. (1981). Citation networks in information science. Scientometrics, 3(1), 13–25, Available from: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF02021861.pdf on September 18, 2019.
Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2015). Nova gestão pública na noruega: o papel do contexto nacional na mediação da reforma educacional. Educação and Sociedade, 36(132), 779–800, Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/es/v36n132/1678-4626-es-36-132-00779.pdf on September 18, 2019.
Nacional de Educação, P. (2014). Lei nº 13.005, de 25 de junho de 2014. Brasilia. Available from: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/l13005.htm on September 18, 2019.
Ng, S. W. (2013). Including parents in school governance: Rhetoric or reality. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(6), 667–680, Available from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJEM-07-2012-0087/full/pdf?title=including-parents-in-school-governance-rhetoric-or-reality on September 19, 2019.
Nórvoa, A., & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey?. Comparative Education, 39(4), 423–438, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006032000162002 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Oldham, S. (2017). Enterprise education: Critical implications for New Zealand curriculum governance. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 52(2), 331–346, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40841-017-0091-2 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158, Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646923 (accessed 23 September 2019).
Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930902733121 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Ozga, J. (2012). Governing knowledge: Data, inspection and education policy in Europe. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(4), 439–455, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.735148 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Ozga, J. (2016). Trust in numbers? Digital education governance and the inspection process. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 69–81, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115616629 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Ozga, J., Grek, S., & Lawn, M. (2009). The new production of governing knowledge: Education research in England. Soziale Welt, 60(S), 353–369.
Ozga, J., Baxter, J., Clarke, J., Grek, S., & Lawn, M. (2013). The politics of educational change: Governance and school inspection in England and scotland. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 39(2), 37–55.
Pasquali, L. (2009). Instrumentação psicológica: Fundamentos e práticas. Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora.
Peters, B. G. (2012). Governance as political theory. In J. Yu, & S. Guo (Eds.), Civil Society and Governance in China (pp. 17–37). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Popkewitz, T., & Lindblad, S. (2000). Educational governance and social inclusion and exclusion: Some conceptual difficulties and problematics in policy and research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 5–44, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300050005484 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Pritchard, J. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?. Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.
Pritchett, L. (2001). Where has all the education gone?. The World Bank Economic Review, 15(3), 367–391. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3990107 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Ranson, S. (2011). School governance and the mediation of engagement. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 39(4), 398–413, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143211404259 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Ranson, S. (2012). Schools and civil society: Corporate or community governance. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 29–45, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2012.635670 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076586 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Robertson, S. L. (2013). As implicações em justiça social da privatização nos modelos de governança da educação: Um relato relacional. Educação and Sociedade, 34(124), 679–703, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302013000300003 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Robertson, S., & Verger, A. (2012). A origem das parcerias público-privada na governança global da educação. Educação and Sociedade, 33(121), 1133–1156, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302012000400012 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Sarrico, C. S., Veiga, A., & Amaral, A. (2013). The long road – how evolving institutional governance mechanisms are changing the face of quality in Portuguese higher education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(4), 375–391. Available from: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11092-013-9174-x.pdf on September 18, 2019.
Sayed, Y., & Ahmed, R. (2015). Education quality, and teaching and learning in the post-2015 education agenda. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 330–338, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.11.005 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Sbragia, A. (Ed.) (1992), Euro-politics: Institutions and policymaking in the ‘new’ European community. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Schiersmann, C. (2014). Hybridity and governance changes in continuing education. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(11), 1464–1474, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214534673 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Simkins, T. (2014). Governance of education in the United Kingdom: Convergence or divergence?. Local Government Studies, 40(6), 986–1002, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2012.726143 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Small, H. (1973). Co-Citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Soares, J. F., & Org. (2005). Qualidade e equidade na educação básica brasileira: Fatos e possibilidades. In Brock, C., & Schwartzman, S. (Eds.), Os desafios da educação no Brasil (pp. 91–118). Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira.
Tatagiba, L. (2002). Os conselhos gestores e a democratização das políticas públicas no brasil. In E. Dagnino, & Org (Eds.), Sociedade civil e espaços públicos no Brasil (pp. 47–103). São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Tatagiba, L. (2005). Conselhos gestores de políticas públicas e democracia participativa: Aprofundando o debate. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 25, 209–213, Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-44782005000200017 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Theisens, H., Hooge, E., & Waslander, S. (2016). Steering dynamics in complex education systems. An agenda for empirical research. European Journal of Education, 51(4), 463–477, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12187 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Trabelsi, S. (2018). Public education spending and economic growth: The governance threshold effect. Journal of Economic Development, 43(1), 101–124.
United Nations [UN] (2017a). Tier classification for global SDG indicators. Available from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/Tier_Classification_of_SDG_Indicators_22_May_2019_web.pdf on September 18, 2019.
United Nations [UN]. (2017b). Transformando nosso mundo: A agenda 2030 para o desenvolvimento sustentável: Objetivos do desenvolvimento sustentável. Available from: https://nacoesunidas.org/pos2015/ (accessed 18 September 2019).
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2015). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656e.pdf (accessed 19 September 2019).
Vaz, A. C. N. (2011). Da participação à qualidade da deliberação em fóruns públicos: o itinerário da literatura sobre conselhos no brasil. In R. R. Pires, & Org (Eds). Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: estratégias de avaliação (pp. 91–108). Brasilia: IPEA. Available from: http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/livros/livro_dialogosdesenvol07.pdf (accessed 19 September 2019).
Vidovich, L., & Currie, J. (2011). Governance and trust in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 43–56. doi: 10.1080/03075070903469580.
Williamson, B. (2012). Centrifugal Schooling: Third sector policy networks and the reassembling of curriculum policy in England. Journal of Education Policy, 27(6), 775–794, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.653405 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Williamson, B. (2015). Governing software: Networks, databases and algorithmic power in the digital governance of public education. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 83–105, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.924527 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Williamson, B. (2016). Digital methodologies of education governance: Pearson plc and the remediation of methods. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 34–53, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115612485 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Woelert, P., & Millar, V. (2013). The ‘paradox of interdisciplinarity’ in Australian research governance. Higher Education, 66(6), 755–767. Available from: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10734-013-9634-8.pdf on September 18, 2019.
World Bank. (1992). Governance and development. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/pt/604951468739447676/pdf/multi-page.pdf (accessed 19 September 2019).
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472, Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629 (accessed 19 September 2019).
Further reading
Declaração Mundial sobre a Educação para todos (1989). Available from: https://www.unicef.org/brazil/declaracao-mundial-sobre-educacao-para-todos-conferencia-de-jomtien-1990 on September 19, 2019.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] (1948). Available from: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/217(III)&Lang=E on September 18, 2019.
World Bank. (1989). Sub-Saharan Africa: From crisis to sustainable growth. Available from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/498241468742846138/pdf/multi0page.pdf (accessed 19 September 2019).
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Prof. Igor A. Lourenço da Silva for translating and revising this article.