“Who Are We Writing For?”

On Research Publishing in Comparative Studies Based on International Large-Scale Assessments





international comparisons, science-society interaction, research communication, large scale assessments, educational research


This study is based on an interest in interaction between science and society and how this structures science and society in tandem. In order to capture such interaction, we are analysing statements in scientific publications. The purpose of this study is to analyse relevancing in scientific publications by studying who are addressed by the research contributions and why these are considered to be relevant. Our case is the field of research labelled as International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSA), such as the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), created to analyse relations between educational designs and student performances.

We identified a large set of research publications by means of the search engines Web of Science and Scopus. We selected publications that were peer reviewed and based on empirical comparisons between at least two countries. A large majority were only analysing student achievement, and few were researching impacts of educational variations. Relevance statements were mostly addressing policymakers. These findings are indicating strong social structuring of much ILSA research.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Sverker Lindblad, Department of Education and Special Education, Faculty of Education, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Professor in Education at Gothenburg University, Sweden

Daniel Pettersson, Academy for Education and Economics, Department of Education, University of Gävle, Sweden

Professor in Education at the University of Gävle, Sweden


Bowker, G., & Star, S. L., (1999). Sorting things out. Classification an its consequences. The MIT Press.

Brown, C. (2012). The policy agora: how the epistemological and ideological preferences of policy-makers affect the development of government policy. Human Welfare, 1(1), 57-70.

Bunge, M. (1966). Technology as applied science. In Contributions to a Philosophy of Technology (pp. 19-39). Springer.

Carvalho, L. M. (2012). The fabrications and travels of a knowledge-policy instrument. European Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 172-188.

De Saussure, F. (1916/1959). Nature of the linguistic sign. Course in general linguistics. Philosophical Library.

Durkheim, E. (2013). The evolution of educational thought: Lectures on the formation and development of secondary education in France. Routledge.

Elde Mølstad, C., & Pettersson, D. (2019). New Practices of Comparison, Quantification and Expertise in Education: Conducting Empirically Based Research. Routledge.

Engwall, Lars (1995). Management research: A fragmented adhocracy? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(3), 225-235.

Foss-Lindblad, R. F., & Lindblad, S., (2016). On relevance and norms of science in times of restructuring: Educational research in Sweden. In Political pressures on educational and social research (pp. 66-76). Routledge.

Fuller, S. (2016). Post Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game. Anthem Press.

Furlong, J., & Lawn, M. (2011). Disciplines of Education: Their Role in the Future of Education Research. Routledge.

Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American sociological review, 48(6), 781-795.

Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: the PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23-37.

Gustavsson, S. (1971). Debatten om forskningen och samhället: en studie i några teoretiska inlägg under 1900-talet (Doctoral dissertation). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

Hacking, I. (1990). The Taming of Chance. Cambridge University Press.

Hunter, I. (1994). Rethinking the School: Subjectivity, Bureaucracy, Criticism. Routledge.

Husén, T., & Postlethwaite, T. N. (1996). A brief history of the international association for the evaluation of educational achievement (TEA). Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 3(2), 129-141.

Jasanoff, S. (2021). Knowledge for a just climate. Climatic Change, 169(36). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03275-x

Jerrim, J. (2014). The Unrealistic Educational Expectations of High School Pupils: Is America Exceptional?. The Sociological Quarterly, 55(1), 196-231.

Kalleberg, R. (2007). A reconstruction of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7(2), 137-160.

Keiner, E. (2019). ‘Rigour’,‘discipline’and the ‘systematic’: The cultural construction of educational research identities?. European Educational Research Journal, 18(5), 527-545.

Klemperer, V. (2006). The Language of the Third Reich. Continuum.

Knorr-Cetina, K. D., & Mulkay, M. (1983). Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. Sage.

Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual review of sociology, 28(1), 167-195.

Lawn, M. (2017). Europeanizing through expertise: From scientific laboratory to the governing of education. In World Yearbook of Education 2018 (pp. 53-69). Routledge.

Lee, B. (2014). The influence of school tracking systems on educational expectations: a comparative study of Austria and Italy. Comparative education, 50(2), 206-228.

Lindblad, S., Pettersson, D., & Popkewitz, T. S. (2015). International comparisons of school results: A systematic review of research on large-scale assessments in education. The Swedish Research Council.

Lindblad, S., Pettersson, D., & Popkewitz, T. S. (2018). Education by the Numbers and the Making of Society: The Expertise of International Assessments. Routledge.

Lingard, B. (2020). Enactments and resistances to globalizing testing regimes and performance-based accountability in the USA. In World Yearbook of Education 2021 (pp. 279-293). Routledge.

Liou, P. Y. (2014). Examining the Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect on students' self-concept of learning science in Taiwan based on the TIMSS databases. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2009-2028.

Luhmann, N. (2006). System as difference. Organization, 13(1), 37-57.

Luhmann, N., & Behnke, K. (1994). The modernity of science. New German Critique, (61), 9-23.

Luhmann, N., & Lenzen, D. (2002). Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. (1. Aufl.). Suhrkamp.

Martens, K., & Niemann, D. (2013). When do numbers count? The differential impact of the PISA rating and ranking on education policy in Germany and the US. German Politics, 22(3), 314-332.

Merton, R. K. (1942/1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. The University of Chicago Press.

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Simon and Schuster.

Mølstad, C., Pettersson, D., & Forsberg, E. (2017). A Game of Thrones: Organising and Legitimasing Knowledge through PISA-research. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 869-884.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press.

Qvortrup, L. (2005, December). Society's Educational System. In Seminar. Net, 1(1).s

Rip, A. (2010). Social robustness and the mode 2 diagnosis. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 6(1) 71-74.

Rosengren, K. E., & Öhngren, B. (1997). An Evaluation of Swedish Research in education. Vetenskapsrådet.

Sadeh, T. (2013). From Search to Discovery. IFLA WLIC.

Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). PISA and the expanding role of the OECD in global educational governance. Symposium Books.

Song, S., Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2014). Explaining the achievement gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students: An analysis of PISA 2009 results for Australia and New Zealand. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(3), 178-198.

Spencer Brown, G. (1969). Laws of for. Allen and Unvvin.

Stehr, N., & Meja, V. (Eds.). (1984). Society and Knowledge: contemporary perspectives in the Sociology of Knowledge. Transaction Books.

Stichweh, R. (1996). Science in the system of world society. Social Science Information, 35(2), 327-340.

Taschwer, K. (1996). Science as system vs. science as practice: Luhmann's sociology of science and recent approaches in science and technology studies (STS)—a fragmentary confrontation. Social Science Information, 35(2), 215-232.

von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. Cornell University Press.

von Wright, G. H. (1983). Practical Reason. Basil Blackwell.

Weber, M. (1949). Max Weber on the methodology of the social sciences. Free Press

Weber, M. (1958). Science as a Vocation. Daedalus, 87(1), 111-134.

Whitley, R. (2000). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford University Press.

Woods-McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2014). Science engagement and literacy: A retrospective analysis for students in Canada and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1588-1608.

Ziman, J. (2002). Real science, what it is and what it means. Cambridge University Press.