Manufacturing an illusory consensus? A bibliometric analysis of the international debate on education privatisation

Opting for Private Education: Public Subsidy Programs and School Choice in Disadvantaged Contexts

“…Accordingly, while public schools are considered by many interviewed families as unresponsive institutions in a generic sense, S-LFPSs are portrayed as more receptive spaces to family demands. These results are in line with those highlighted in international literature reviews that show that “family satisfaction” is one of the few dimensions in which private schools perform better than public schools (Verger, Fontdevila, Rogan, & Gurney, 2019). Based on what we observed in the case of the city of Buenos Aires, client satisfaction is explained by the type of supplier–consumer relationship inherent in a de facto consumer accountability model and by the greater autonomy that S-LFPSs enjoy in terms of management—which allows these institutions to respond to family demands without the mediation of a Ministry authority (Beech & Barrenechea, 2011).…”

From science to politics: commissioned reports and their political translation into White Papers

“…Most recently, Piattoeva et al (2018) convincingly argued that the governments of Brazil, China, and Russia (the objects of their study) resort to "governance by data circulation" in an effort to reach out to district authorities. Apparently, externalization to "scientific rationality" helps to temporarily build coalitions across interest groups, even when the consensus may be manufactured and built on an illusory consensus (Verger et al 2018).…”

The Role and Contribution of Academic Researchers in Congressional Hearings: A Critical Discourse Analysis

“…Many educational researchers conduct research with the hope that their research-based insights will be used by policymakers (Perna, 2016). And academic researchers may be expected to offer perspectives that are independent from a larger political agenda (Verger et al, 2018). But legislators included only a relatively small number of academics in the identified Congressional hearings (22 of 247 witness slots).…”

“…Using bibliometric methods, one study found that, compared with research cited in reports by intermediary organizations, research cited in academic reports is more commonly peer-reviewed, less self-referential, and a more balanced reflection of the state of available knowledge (Verger et al, 2018). Future research should consider whether and how legislators differentiate the contributions of academic researchers from the contributions of other witnesses, particularly other witnesses with research expertise.…”

“…Academic researchers are asserted to be “good sources of information and ideas for research on important policy issues,” especially issues that involve complex social problems with multiple potential solutions (Birkland, 2016, p. 170). Unlike interest groups and overtly ideological think tanks, academic researchers are said to offer perspectives that are independent from a larger political agenda and based on fair and rigorous examinations of data (Verger, Fontdevila, Rogan, & Gurney, 2018).…”