CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Global Educational Policies and ReformsDigital Education and SocietyArtificial Intelligence in Education

Repackaging authority: artificial intelligence, automated governance and education trade shows

Gulson, Kalervo N., Witzenberger, Kevin·2022·Journal of Education Policy
DOI 10.1080/02680939.2020.1785552
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence has the potential to be an important part of education governance. It is already being built into everything from business intelligence platforms to real-time online testing. In this paper, we aim to understand how AI becomes, and forms, a legitimate part of authority in contemporary education governance in what we call the automated education governance assemblage, that incorporates technology companies and AI-supported products used in education. We focus on EduTech Australia – an education technology trade show in Sydney – as a way to look at: (i) how the different aspects of automated governance are connected at EduTech, including the relations between different participants, companies and products; and (ii) how the automated governance assemblage works to legitimise and constitute EduTech as a policy space and site of new authorities in education governance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02680939.2020.1785552

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A packaged module could easily become just another generic resource commodity pushed on overworked and underpaid educators without enough critical perspectives or representative examples.

    “However, a packaged module could also easily become just another generic resource commodity pushed on overworked and underpaid educators without enough critical perspectives or representative examples; which would have to be carefully considered and critically reflected upon (see also [35]).”

    From Responding to Generative AI Technologies with Research-through-Design: The Ryelands AI Lab as an Exploratory Study (2024) · cites this paper as [35]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gulson, K. N., & Witzenberger, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Sydney
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Education Policy
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-06-28
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
145-160
ISSN
  • 0268-0939 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5106
DOI
10.1080/02680939.2020.1785552
OpenAlex
W3037967964
Cited by
60
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11
FWCI
20.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Education Policy (publishedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (FT180100280)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Educational Policies and Reforms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
artificial intelligence in education, algorithmic governance, education governance, authority, legitimacy, assemblage theory, technology companies, online assessment, business intelligence platforms, education policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review