The social and cognitive mapping of policy: The education sector in Romania
The report written in the frame of orientation 1 provides an analysis on knowledge and policy in national context. It seeks to map the actors of the romanian education, the knowledge potentially available for policy makers, decision makers within education, to trace the relationship between those who hold and produce knowledge and those who use knowledge in policy decisions. In order to answer the research-questions interviews were conducted within politicians, decision makers, experts and... Read more ...
The Community action programme in the Romanian education
The report on the first public action of orientation 2 provides the analysis of Community Action Programme (CA) implemented in Romania between 2003- 2009. The report discusses the knowledge-policy relation, the use of knowledge in the process of decision-making, implementation and evaluation in the case of CA. Considering the course and methodology of the research a complex process took place. Interviews were conducted, document, event and website analysis was done, media materials and CA... Read more ...
PISA in Romanian Context
Since the focus in orientation 3 was put on regulatory instruments, our team conducted research on the diffusion and use of PISA in the romanian education. Central research questions were put on the knowledge producing and knowledge circulating role of this instrument, the team had tried to explore - next to the context of PISA - the process of implementation, the information transmited by the PISA results and the use of these results, the characteristics of dissemination and social... Read more ...
Mapping the Provision of Training
The The role of knowledge in the regulation of regional initial vocational training and education policies (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur/Rhône-Alpes Regions). Read more ...
In Europe, information and expertise are now both more widely distributed and more readily accessible than ever before. At the same time, expectations of transparency and public accountability have increased. In many ways, knowledge is coming to play a new role in policy: we can now distinguish ’post-bureaucratic’ from conventional ’bureaucratic’ regimes and show that each presupposes a specific kind of knowledge and a specific way of using it. While bureaucratic modes of governance require ‘established’ bodies of knowledge to be translated into ‘vertical’ regulations; post-bureaucratic modes of governance consist rather in attempting to turn actors’ autonomy and reflexivity into a means of governing.
