Justice and marketization of education in three Nordic countries: can existing large-scale datasets support comparisons?

7Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Traditionally emphasizing justice, equality and inclusion, education policies in the Nordic countries have incorporated neoliberal features during the last three decades, but to varying extents. These changes have important, multidimensional implications, but the variations have been addressed in few comparative Nordic studies. Thus, this article explores the potential to strengthen comparisons of education regimes in the Nordic countries generally, and social justice and marketization aspects more specifically, by using existing datasets and databases. It initially elaborates the concepts of justice and marketization of education. Using Iceland, Norway and Sweden as examples, it explores the relevance, accessibility and comparability of some of the larger international and national statistical databases, and hence their potential to enable such comparisons. These data are complemented with interviews conducted with officials at the national agencies of education in the three countries. A main conclusion is that abundant data are generally available (despite substantial gaps and silences in the datasets) on various aspects of social justice in education. In contrast, there is very little data on most aspects of marketization. Comparability is often hindered by factors such as differences in definitions, white spots and the organization of education. It is concluded that there is clearly a need to extend and develop the currently limited Nordic collaboration in the selection and harmonization of educational statistics.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lundahl, L., Arnesen, A. L., & Jónasson, J. T. (2018). Justice and marketization of education in three Nordic countries: can existing large-scale datasets support comparisons? Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 4(3), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2018.1542908

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free