Relatsiooniline mõtteviis ja metodoloogiad-meetodid on laialdaselt levimas ning selleks on palju kaalukaid argumente. Substantsipõhisel ja/või lineaarsel ümbritseva mõtestamisel on tõsiseid puuduseid, mida “asja-sees-olemisel” põhinev mõtteviis aitab ületada. Siinviidatu leidiski koha peamiselt kolmel põhjusel:
(1) relatsioonilisele mõtteviisile tuginevad uurimismetodoloogiad võiks olla huvipakkuvad paljudele;
(2) haridusvaldkonna poliitikakujundus on midagi sellist, mis võiks olla tänases keerustuvas sotsiaalses keskkonnas olulisel kohal;
(3) uute metoodikate katsetamine ja nendele mõtlemine oleks kasulik … hoidumaks üldisest mandumisest, etableerumisest …
Oi, kui vajalik artikkel.
In education policymaking, two developments particularly reflect this moving away from the nation-state. First, different intergovernmental organizations (IOs), such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Commission (EC), have expanded the range and scope of their policy initiatives in recent decades. […] Second, emerging techniques of digital governance are another key manifestation of the nation-state being actively transgressed by education policies globally. Digital education governance refers to the rise of data-driven styles of governing that infuse education and the education policy sector with a broad digital instrumentation (Williamson 2016).
Lähemale relatsioonilisele mõtteviisile:
A crucial insight is therefore that digital infrastructures, as assemblages of multifarious technologies and instrumentations, do not merely represent educational actors (e.g., in the form of digital datasets). Rather, these infrastructures also actively change these actors and help bringing them into being (Hartong and Piattoeva 2021; Jarke and Breiter 2019; Grommé and Ruppert 2019), whereby the act of making something or someone representable, observable and governable, ultimately alters the one being observed (Williamson 2016, 124; Jensen and Morita 2017; Lawn 2013).
Our specific aim is to present a methodology that we call topological genealogy (henceforth TG), or genealogies practiced with a topological lens.
Topoloogilisest genealoogiast alustuseks:
TG is dedicated to investigating the conjoined production of digital infrastructures and present-day policymaking as governance, as well as how both produce, and are produced by, processes of flows and change.
Moreover, topological understandings of space and time are no longer a priori formed, as in more traditional understandings of chronological time and Euclidean space. […] Crucially, topological thinking makes a double claim: that we are increasingly living in a topological society where movement (as the ordering of continuity) and change (as shifting patterns of relations) compose the forms of present-day social practices; and that a topological lens is useful to analyze these practices (Lury, Parisi, and Terranova 2012, 6).
Topology is thus attentive to how spatiotemporal scales are not considered as being nested in one another (e.g., past-present-future as linearly and chronologically unfolding; micro-meso-macro as differing in size and scope), but rather in ‘the agential enfolding of different scales through one another’ (Barad 2007, 245; emphasis added).
Rather than (reflexively) pointing out similarities and/or differences between one practice (space, event, time) and another, this requires coming to an understanding of how those practices (spaces, events, times) are made through one another.
As argued above, one of the prime characteristics of topological thinking is that it constantly scrutinizes how relations are producing specific effects. In the field of education, TG is therefore interested in the specific educational forms that are being created through practices of digital governance, throughout space, throughout time, and through the ongoing development (and sustaining) of digital infrastructures (Decuypere and Simons 2020; Gulson and Sellar 2019; Ratner 2019).
Mitte üle või ümber, vaid sees:
As a methodological approach, TG thus deviates from a more historical (archetypically Foucauldian) understanding of ‘genealogy’ as an excavation of the conditions of possibility – a history of the present – that seeks to understand those elements of which we feel they are ‘without history’ (Foucault 1980, 139). Instead, and as argued, TG is interested in ‘the middle’, and in how this relational middle is shaped by – and, at the same time, shapes – past, present and future spatiotemporal ideas, rationales and configurations (Barad 2007; Lury 2012).
Metodoloogia, mitte meetod:
By designating TG as methodology, we furthermore explicitly refrain from calling it method. Whereas ‘method’ suggests a more proceduralized way of knowing, ‘methodologies’ highlight the importance of theory in determining what counts as problems, as well as what ‘proper’ solutions might be to these problems. As such, we consider methodologies as practices that are co-constitutive of the settings of which they inquire (Decuypere 2021; Lewis 2020c; Lury, Tironi, and Bernasconi 2020; Law 2004).
Mathias Decuypere & Steven Lewis (2021): Topological genealogy: a methodology to research transnational digital governance in/through/as change, Journal of Education Policy, DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2021.1995629