hig.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
12 1 - 50 of 90
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1.
    Bergh, Andreas
    et al.
    Örebro universitet, Örebro, Sweden.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Education.
    Skott, Pia
    Uppsala universitet, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Kunskapsmätningar2015In: Utbildning, makt och politik / [ed] Sverker Lindblad & Lisbeth Lundahl, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2015, 1, p. 163-180Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 2.
    Elde Møldstad, Christina
    et al.
    Inland University of Applied Sciences, Norway.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science.
    Prøitz, Tine S.
    University of Southeast Norway, Norway.
    The Making of Educational Policies: PISA and the Fabrication of Facts on Teaching and Teachers2017In: Education policies and the restructuring of the educational profession: Global and comparative perspectives / [ed] Carvalho, L. M., Min, L., Normand, R. & Andrade Oliver, D., Springer Publishing Company, 2017Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 3.
    Elde Mølstad, Christina
    et al.
    Faculty of Education and Natural Sciences, Høgskolen i Hedmark, Norway.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science.
    Comparative reasoning: curriculum making in the 'grey zone'2017Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Curriculum making concerns the possibility to decide and prescribe purposes, aims, and contents of schooling, but also how these purposes, aims and contents are legitimized. As such, we see curriculum making from the ‘wide’ interpretation of curriculum. We are in relation to curriculum making especially interested in investigating how some important international actors interact with educational purposes, aims, and contents on a world scale level affecting national level, as well as the very local of educational activities. Hence we are interested in investigating curriculum formulation based on comparative statistical reasoning. The actors we are most interested in are those that have been characterized as ‘grey zone’ actors (Lindblad, Pettersson & Popkewitz, 2015). The idea (and term) of the ‘grey zone’ emerged from a previous review of research and organizations using data from international largeVscale assessments (ILSA) (Lindblad et al., 2015) for comparing education systems. These ‘grey zone’ actors have only at best an indirect mandate in education systems, however they still make explicit statements on how to improve schooling and students’ performances; i.e. a form of curriculum making. It is the indirect mandate combined with relatively strong impact on the governing of education that place these actors in the ‘grey zone’.

    There are at least three important actors that stood out in terms of activities spread to a world scale level; the McKinsey, the OECD and the Pearson Company, which all have arisen as important nodes for knowledge on what education is perceived as and maybe more importantly, should be. Their position within education is further reinforced by the comparative and data driven aspects of the contemporary society (cf. Pettersson, Popkewitz & Lindblad, 2016). We examine, three,  what we call  ‘grey zone’ activities involved in curriculum formulation and how a specific reasoning (cf. Hacking, 1992) is used and evolves in these activities: i) the McKinsey producing international reports on educational improvements and developments. Within the terminology of McKinsey recommendations are produced for these purposes: ii) the OECD not only producing ILSA and recommendations, but also producing newsletters where the results of ILSA are mediated and communicated to policy, research and practice: iii) the Pearson Company not only the winner of the open tender to perform PISA 2018, but also the producer of a vast amount of websites for school development within the frameworks of The Learning Curve (TLC) and The Efficacy Framework as well as producing school textbooks. Hence we investigate how these activities frame education defining what content curriculum making should focus on and as such making prerequisites on what education is and should be perceived as.

    All three of these agencies can be discussed in terms of producing activities important for curriculum making in the ‘wider’ sense of the concept. By analyzing products by the agencies we are in a position to highlight them as important sites for curriculum making on an international level. In our study we especially highlight these products in terms of producing a specific reasoning about education, which creates narratives framing curriculum making on a national as well as on a local school level.

  • 4.
    Elde Mølstad, Christina
    et al.
    Inland Norway University, Norway.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science.
    Soft infusion: Constructing 'Teachers' in the PISA sphere2017Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 5.
    Elde Mølstad, Christina
    et al.
    Inland University, Norway.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    Who Governs the Numbers?: The Framing of Educational Knowledge by TIMSS Research2018In: Education by the Numbers and the Making of Society: The Expertise of International Assessments / [ed] Sverker Lindblad, Daniel Pettersson, Thomas S. Popkewitz, New York: Taylor & Francis, 2018, p. 166-184Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In contemporary society, different tests of educational performance have been given importance in educational research, policy initiatives and curriculum change as well as in media. Consequently, performance in schools has been increasingly judged on the basis of effective student learning outcomes. One of the most active agencies in performing international comparative tests is the IEA—International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. The IEA has a history dating back to the 1950s (for a discussion on the history of the IEA see, e.g., Pettersson, 2014), and since 1995 an international large-scale assessment with the acronym TIMSS repetitively has been launched. TIMSS, together with other tests staged by either the IEA or other international organizations, has gradually transformed into reference points for general economic and social policies (Pettersson, 2014). In this context, the phenomenon of international large-scale assessments (ILSA) are serving a global governance constituted by a specific reasoning (cf. Hacking, 1992) connected to the use of numbers. ILSA research, for example, studies using data or results from TIMSS, is based on numbers constructed for partly governance reasons and is a growing interdisciplinary and increasingly international field of study (Lindblad, Pettersson, & Popkewitz, 2015). Hence, the scientific development of the field is highly relevant to analyze. However, it is surprisingly few educational studies that have made use of the data rapidly accumulating with the development of various databases and software. Given the importance of this numbered educational discourse as a social and scientific practice, we propose that it is crucial to take into account how this discourse is framed through different written formats.

  • 6.
    Elde Mølstad, Christina
    et al.
    Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science.
    Forsberg, Eva
    Uppsala universitet, Sweden.
    A Game of Thrones: Organising and Legitimising Knowledge Through PISA-research2017In: European Educational Research Journal (online), ISSN 1474-9041, E-ISSN 1474-9041, Vol. 16, no 6, p. 869-884Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This study investigates knowledge structures and scientific communication using bibliometric methodsto explore scientific knowledge production and dissemination. The aim is to develop knowledgeabout this growing field by investigating studies using international large-scale assessment (ILSA) data,with a specific focus on those using Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data.As international organisations use ILSA to measure, assess and compare the success of nationaleducation systems, it is important to study this specific knowledge to understand how it is organisedand legitimised within research. The findings show an interchange of legitimisation, where majoractors from the USA and other English-speaking and westernised countries determine the academicdiscourse. Important epistemic cultures for PISA research are identified: the most important of whichare situated within psychology and education. These two research environments are epicentrescreated by patterns of the referrals to and referencing of articles framing the formulation of PISAknowledge. Finally, it is argued that this particular PISA research is self-referential and self-authorising,which raises questions about whether research accountability leads to ‘a game of thrones’, whererivalry going on within the scientific field concerning how and on what grounds ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ areconstructed, as a continuing process with no obvious winner.

  • 7.
    Elde Mølstad, Christina
    et al.
    Inland University of Applied Sciences, Norway.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science.
    Forsberg, Eva
    Uppsala universitet.
    Framing of Curriculum Research: Experts or Algorithms?2017Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 8.
    Elde Mølstad, Christina
    et al.
    Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences (INN University), Norway.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    Forsberg, Eva
    Departement of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Scientific Framing of Curriculum Research: Experts or Algorithms?2017Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Mapping research in relation to research interest is a common act of performing a research review. This kind of activity is an important part of being a researcher both to portray the competence of knowing a field and to frame specific research theoretically and analytically. The act of showing belongingness and relationship to different paradigms and thinkers (Kuhn, 1962) or various epistemic cultures (Knorr-Cetina, 1999) has over time been given different forms within the community of research. In relation to the act of framing research by different systematic research strategies we raise questions on: who inhabits and cultivates the field of curriculum research according to different strategies for scientific communication? Our theoretical framework is based on an argument that acknowledge the importance of investigating scientific reasoning (Hacking, 1992) and epistemic cultures (Knorr-Cetina, 1999) for understanding the intellectual organizing of knowledge, and by that exemplify how scientific ‘facts’ and ‘truths’ are constructed and legitimized, which is knowledge perceived as ‘common sense’ (cf. Gramsci 1992) within different scientific fields.

    We investigate four common systematic research strategies for performing research reviews, most used and reproduced within the community of researchers. We have first the handbooks where experts of a specific field are given the legitimacy to portray a specific field of research; second, the systematic search strategies performed with the help of various databases such as e.g. Web of Science, Scopus or ERIC; third, the investigating act of systematically browsing through research journals of special interest within a specific field, and fourth, the systematic research reviews performed by special institutes set up for performing these tasks, such as e.g. Danish Clearinghouse or EPPI centre, which in turn are used as a source by some researchers for illustrating the findings of more restricted and specific research questions.

    Focusing on four different forms of performing systematic research reviews we describe, analyze and compare the various forms with regards to:

    • how knowledge of/in a research field is constructed,
    • what kind of research that is selected and privileged

     In particular, we are interested in the potential movement of research reviews from an act of collective ‘intellectualizing’ among ‘experts’ to an act of ‘technologizing’ dependent on algorithms and terminology embedded in various databases, in which the amount of data is more important in ‘evidence-making’ than the perceived expertise of the source. To put it differently, the databases with their vast aggregation of data, organized by algorithms and terminology, are perceived as the authority and not the authors or the epistemic cultures in which the authors are embedded.

    We use the field of curriculum research to elaborate on the different forms of research reviews and their consequences for knowledge produced. Within the field of curriculum research, handbooks have had a dominant position in describing the field. Also, explicit research reviews within different journals have been important among researchers in the framing of the field of curriculum. However, in the contemporary, bibliometric analyses grounded in database searches and systematic research review performed by special institutes are more and more employed. 

    Method

    Dependent on which strategies used by researchers for framing different research fields we especially hypothesize on the importance of epistemic cultures and how these epistemic cultures historically have transported research, and how this is transformed, or even disappeared, with the entrance of various databases. First, we chose the collaborative act of ‘experts’ producing handbooks as an example of ‘intellectualizing’ dependent on that some researchers are given, or have taken, the role of ‘experts’. Second, we perform bibliometric searches, for reason of illuminating variances, by using Web of Science and Scopus as examples of ‘technologizing’, where databases more than individual researchers or research groups have transformed into the epistemic culture per se. Third, we will systematically browsing through research journals within the curriculum research field using explicit research reviews, within different journals (e.g. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Curriculum Inquiry, Educational Reviewer). This has been an important practice among researchers within the field of curriculum and hence it is important to capture this approach for framing the field. Fourth, we will analyze some systematic research reviews from special institutes (e.g. Danish Clearinghouse or EPPI centre) addressing curriculum research questions This has to a growing extent become a regular way to produce research reviews. Consequently, we are in a position to elaborate on how the field of curriculum research is portrayed by using different strategies for framing a research. This is most important for understanding how the field of curriculum research today is reproduced in various research settings.

    Expected Outcomes

    The preliminary results indicate that for example the use of handbooks portrays the curriculum field by mostly internationally well-recognized curriculum theory researchers, with resembling results for the use of review articles. The use of Web of Science and Scopus to map the curriculum field portrays both a broader and a narrower picture of the field, where more subject specific topics are included while some research is excluded as a consequence of the character of the corpus of journals and data in the databases. This leads to a picture of the curriculum field where actors are publishing on topics and journals more loosely connected to the core for what can be called curriculum research, this since subject specific topics are not in the same way highlighted in the handbooks. The findings of the reviews from the institutes are still to be elaborated. However, the findings so far indicate that there are important differences in the way a field is portrayed depending on which approach is applied. In sum, the results indicate that the approaches we apply shape how a field is portrayed, and by that also how a specific research field can be interpreted and understood. This is important knowledge and should have consequences for example in the way we guide PhD candidates for performing a systematic research review, as well as adding to researchers’ knowledge of the complexity and challenge of the task. It also indicates notions on how a research field is framed in the contemporary, is it made by ‘experts’ of the field or by algorithms and database specific terminology, which is situated outside well-recognized epistemic cultures? What are the consequences of this movement from defining frames of a research field among peers into a technologizing of this act?

    References

    Gramsci, A. (1992) Prison Notebook. G. Lawrence & Wishart: London.

    Hacking, I. (1992). 'Style' of historians and philosophers. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 23(1), 1-20.

    Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Science Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.

    Kuhn, T (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

  • 9.
    Forsberg, Eva
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet.
    Nihlfors, Elisabet
    Uppsala universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science.
    Skott, Pia
    Stockholms universitet.
    Codification of present Swedish Curriculum Processes: Linking Educational Activities Over Time and Space2017Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 10.
    Forsberg, Eva
    et al.
    Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Nihlfors, Elisabet
    Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education. Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Skott, Pia
    Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Codification of Present Swedish Curriculum Processes: Linking Educational Activities over Time and Space2017In: Bridging Educational Leadership, Curriculum Theory and Didaktik: Non-affirmative Theory of Education / [ed] Uljens, Michael & Ylimaki, Rose M., Cham: Springer, 2017, 1, p. 363-393Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The aim of this chapter is to explore the relationship between curriculum and leadership research with examples of three recently completed mixed methods studies of assessment cultures and leadership as interlinked activities of governance and school management. We employ curriculum theoretical concepts like e.g. codes and arenas to illustrate their usefulness as a point of departure to further theorize a changing educational landscape. In our study, we illustrate how curriculum and leadership research are historically linked. We put forward some concepts to address the increased complexity of the governance system, and we stress the need to strengthen how different ways of forming the steering system interplay with key curriculum questions. Leadership researchers have, to a large extent, studied school development on a municipality- and organizational level asking questions on how to manage and guide school development. In contrast, curriculum researchers have studied school development from a reform- and governmental perspective more asking questions on how to steer educational development through law, curricula and evaluation. We suggest that these research traditions ought to be further united in order to develop both traditions in less normative, and more, critical ways, and to answer crucial educational questions in glocal times (Marginson and Rhoades. Conceptualising global relations at the glonacal levels. Paper presented at the annual international forum of the Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Richmond, VA, November 15–18, 2001). This chapter concludes with an argument for a new comparative curriculum code due to major shifts including curriculum practices, message systems, levels, arenas and number of curriculummakers engaged.

  • 11.
    Forsberg, Eva
    et al.
    Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Nihlfors, Elisabet
    Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science. Department of Education, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Skott, Pia
    Department of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Curriculum Code, Arena, and Context: Curriculum and Leadership Research in Sweden2017In: Leadership and Policy in Schools, ISSN 1570-0763, E-ISSN 1744-5043, Vol. 16, no 2, p. 357-382Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article describes the development of the Swedish curriculum-theory tradition with a focus on different curriculum practices, educational message systems, arenas, and curriculum makers. Attention has been paid to different places, spaces, and times in relation to the selection, ordering, and manifestation of knowledge, norms, and values, as well as the management and organization of education. Curriculum and leadership research and changes in Swedish education are described and we introduce the comparative curriculum code as a codification of the contemporary changes in the education system and their consequences for the selection and ordering of knowledge and students.

  • 12.
    Forsberg, Eva
    et al.
    Uppsala University.
    Nihlfors, Elisabeth
    Uppsala University.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    Skott, Pia
    Stockholm University.
    Commodification of Present Swedish Processes: Linking Educational Experiences Over Time and Space2017Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objectives or purpose. In Sweden and other Nordic countries the formation of educational systems has primarily been an issue for the national state in a rather homogenous society. Today, governance of education is embedded in global movements and a multicultural society influencing the role and function of the state. We will use two empirical cases, based in three recently completed research projects, to illuminate how curriculum and leadership research have worked in tandem to explain and develop both policy and practice. The cases focus on the assessment culture of the Swedish schools and implications of changes in governance for local educational leadership.

    Perspectives or theoretical framework. In the Swedish curriculum theory tradition, the curriculum has been analyzed as a pedagogical, a political, a practical and research problem. In order to analyze data and develop curriculum and leadership research the central concept of curriculum code (Lundgren 1977) is further elaborated. We pay attention to different levels, actors and contexts in an era dominated by governance, new public management, accountability and international comparative tests. With mass education from preschool to higher education, marketization and an increasing number of stakeholders the complexity of education governance has also increased and curriculum processes have taken new forms. Lundgren elaborated the concepts of steering group, codes and contexts. Codes relate to the purpose, content and method of a curriculum. He raised questions on how the frames were constituted, and identified historically developed curriculum codes manifested in the selection and organization of school knowledge (e.g. Lundgren, 1977). Shifts in codes were related to changed relations between production and reproduction (Lundgren, 1983); neither the purposes of education nor the subject content were taken for granted.

    Methods. In a recent empirical study, we used questionnaires, interviews and policy texts with analyses grounded in both curriculum theory and leadership research. The empirical base is Sweden from the late 1980s up until today, a highly reform intense period. Findings are presented, focusing especially on governance, leadership and assessment cultures. We include comparative studies and studies covering all 290 Swedish municipalities using both surveys and case studies.

    Results and/or substantiated conclusions. By using empirical findings from projects relating curriculum activities taking place on different levels with a focus on interlinked curriculum processes, we discuss these processes and further develop contemporary curriculum theory.  We address conceptual issues on curriculum making including educational leadership as practice and actors. By linking research on curriculum theory with leadership studies, it is possible to attend to these problems simultaneously.

    Scientific or scholarly significance. In conclusion, this paper is scanning new horizons for how to develop curriculum theory further as a relational practice appearing in various contexts. Specifically, we posit a new code to explain the contemporary situation for curriculum-leadership.

  • 13.
    Forsberg, Eva
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet.
    Nihlfors, Elisabeth
    Uppsala universitet.
    Skott, Pia
    Uppsala universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Education.
    Codification of present Swedish curriculum processes: linking educational activities over time and space2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 14.
    Forsberg, Eva
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Culture Studies, Religious Studies and Educational Sciences, Education.
    European Educational Transfer and Curriculum Displacement: the Swedish case2014In: Transnational Policy Flows in European Education: the making and governing of knowledge in the education policy field / [ed] Andreas Nordin & Daniel Sundberg, Oxford: Symposium Books, 2014Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 15.
    Foss Lindblad, Rita
    et al.
    Borås University.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    University of Gothenburg.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    Wärvik, Gun-Britt
    University of Gothenburg.
    Coproduction of Comparative Education Research and Welfare State Education Policy2018Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The focus of this study is the intimate relations between educational research and its social and political embeddings, seen through the lenses of international large-scale assessments (ILSA) such as the IEA TIMSS- and the OECD PISA-programs. While increasing influence of these assessments on educational policies is widely recognized (e.g. Ozga & Lingard, 2007) and the meta-theoretical rationality on which they are operating (Grek, 2009), the constitutive elements and dynamics involved in producing their success stand out as a more open question (e.g. Wagner, 1987, on national variations).

    Our case is the transition of Swedish Welfare State (SWS) after WW2 and the development of international comparative research in education. With the specific ambition of not letting us fall into the pitfalls of science/politics dichotomies, we are addressing the dynamics of science/society coproduction (Nowotny et al, 2003; Jasanoff et al, 2001). This case is of significant interest: Firstly, the SWS had a recognized centralistic organization with high reliance on science (Fridjonsdottir, 1987). This organization restructured thoroughly in the 1990s with an increasing emphasis of ILSA (Lindblad, Pettersson & Popkewitz, 2015). Secondly, in the emergence of international assessments Swedish researchers played an important role (Husén & Postlethwaite, 1996). The specific time-space reveals uneven patterns in science/society coproduction where IEA is manifesting success as well as a breaking-point in a today highly weakened regime of how the relevance of international comparative education is to be secured, and what this means.

    Our study is based on a combination of policy documents from state commissions and parliamentary bills, research reports and evaluations of ongoing changes in policy and research as. We identified characteristic phases in the welfare state governance from expansion and centralistic governance over deregulation and decentralization and later into the introduction of a voucher system and governing by results. The analyses resulted in three major conclusions:

    − At the start comparative education research was rare and had a humanistic base in comprehending education in other contexts. The emerging ILSA was based in the social sciences where comparisons centered on differences in efficiency over national contexts.

    − During the first decades of ILSA there was little evidence of societal relevance, e.g. in use for policy decisions and reform initiatives. However, the societal relevance increased drastically, given the restructuring of the educational system and the increasing importance given to supranational organizations.

    − ILSA was from the beginning strongly contextualized and dependent on external resources. The making of the IIE opened up new possibilities for ILSA in Academia, but it is the more recent changes in governance and changes in methodology as well as technology that has allowed the success and dominance of ILSA in research and policy discourses.

    Given these conclusions ILSA turned out to be a successful but contested approach to educational research. For the coproduction of science/society the combination of a strong emphasis on ILSA in social and political discourses on education plus the closing down of the International Institute of Education and the transfer of PISA studies to Pearson is congenial to this development.

    References:

    Fridjonsdottir, K. (1987). Social Change, Trade Union Politics, and the Sociology of Work. In The Social Direction of the Public Sciences (pp. 249-276). Springer Netherlands.

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

    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. Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage publications.

    Lindblad, S., Pettersson, D., & Popkewitz, T. S. (2015). International comparisons of school results - A systematic review of research on Large Scale Assessment in education. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Research Council.

    Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: Mode 2'Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179-194.

    Ozga, J., & Lingard, B. (2007). Globalisation, education policy and politics. The RoutledgeFalmer reader in education policy and politics, 65-82.

    Wagner, P. (1987). Social sciences and political projects: reform coalitions between social scientists and policy-makers in France, Italy, and West Germany. In The Social Direction of the Public Sciences (pp. 277-306). Springer Netherlands.

  • 16.
    Jansson, Joel
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet.
    Forsberg, Eva
    Uppsala universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Education.
    Román, Henrik
    Uppsala universitet.
    Socialisation in Correctional System and Doctoral Education: analyses of contemporary policy formation in Sweden2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 17.
    Jansson, Joel
    et al.
    Uppsala universitet.
    Forsberg, Eva
    Uppsala universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Education.
    Román, Henrik
    Uppsala universitet.
    Targeted (re)-socialization in universities and prisons: a policy study concerning tutor and tutee2015In: Abstract book NERA 2015, 2015, p. 1-1Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The paper present a sub-study included in a curriculum theory project on targeted socialization within two institutions of major importance for the Nordic welfare states enculturation, universities and prisons. We compare the relationship between supervisor/doctoral student and correctional contact persons/inmates. There are some apparent differences between these two contexts. Universities are mostly discussed in terms of socialization and learning, prisons more often as institutions where inmates are in need of re-socialization whether they approve or not. Students enter doctoral education as a result of a qualified meritocratic selection process, and success will produce holders of the highest exam possible. Inmates qualify for prison by being convicted for a crime in a court of law, and are deprived of their liberty as they are incarcerated. In addition, prison has a mixed purpose of being about retribution and deterrence, as well as rehabilitation. In this substudy we compare aspects of targeted (re)-socialization processes, from a curriculum theory perspective, regarding the two relationships mentioned above. In other words, the tutoring relationship between tutors and tutees in the contexts of doctoral education and inmate rehabilitation. We pay special attention to the transactions of knowledge, norms, values and identities offered in both cases. The empirical material consists of policy-texts on a national (laws for prisons/ probation, higher education and policy-texts concerning the correctional contact persons)-and a local level (enforcement plans, individual study planes and policy-texts concerning PhD supervision). Preliminary results of this sub-study is that the targeted (re)-socialization process of these two activities have both similarities and difference. This opens up for further research questions on how similarities are played out through the differences between the two institutions in objectives and contents (curriculum), educational forms (pedagogy) and assessment activities (evaluation).

  • 18.
    Lillejord, Solvi
    et al.
    Knowledge Centre for Education, Norway.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Education.
    Popkewitz, Thomas S.
    University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    Levinsson, Magnus
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Proitz, Tine
    University College of Buskerud and Vestfold, Norway.
    On Systemic Research Reviews’ and the Politics of Knowledge in Education2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 19. Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    Getting the numbers right: An introduction2018In: Education by the Numbers and the Making of Society: The Expertise of International Assessments / [ed] Sverker Lindblad, Daniel Pettersson, & Thomas S. Popkewitz, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018, p. 1-20Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This is a book about knowledge on and in education. The focus is on numbers—on how numbers shape our understandings of education, its dynamics, practices, operations, goals and missions. Important are the comparative powers of numbers—how differences and similarities between kinds of people and performances are constructed by numbers, over time and over places. Numbers appear to be neutral and precise, but like all symbols (such as letters, flags, etc.), the relations between numbers and what they represent are to be socially produced and learned, and the techniques to translate the one to the other (the symbol to its representation), such as statistics, are built on specific systems of reasoning. Numbers say little as such, but as they have come to be powerful representations of the modern world, shown in tables, diagrams or percentages, they are today also highly embedded with what is, and is not, of value and importance. Numbers are not only tools for analyses, but also highly performative, as they are framing our thoughts and conceptions of things. If there were a modern purgatory, it would be a spectacle of numbers that translated into such things as diagrams and regression lines showing dramatically where we are and what to expect, fear or hope for. Numbers make us read the world in taken-for-granted terms of progress and crises, ups and downs, differences and similarities. From where, and how, do these powers of numbers come about—and what are their premises and preconditions as they have come to play a key role in large-scale assessments and other forms of science-based policies and governance?

  • 20.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    University of Gothenburg.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    International Large-Scale Assessments in Education: Social and Intellectual Organization ofa Research Field2018In: NERA 2018 - 46th Congress: Educational Research: Boundaries, Breaches and Bridges: Abstracts, 2018Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper is a result from a systematic research review on international comparisons in education by means of International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSA). We asked what research is carried out and which research results and conclusions are presented in this field of study? We started with an identification of a large set of research publications in the field – more than 11 000 texts were identified by means of search engines for the period 2004 –2017. Of these we choose the PISA-, TIMSS-and the CIVED/ICCS-research programs –in sum more than 8 000 publications. Given the task to assess research quality we included peer reviewed scientific articles and only including primary research doing international comparisons. Important in mapping and synthesizing research was to capture arguments and conclusions in a broad field that varied in terms of study objects as well as knowledge objects. A broad result concerns what to be explained. We noted in the reviewed articles a very large share ofidentifications of achievement gaps over population taxonomies. To a much lesser extent differences in efficiency were analyzed. We also found research analyzing how to redirect or govern students into certain careers –often in science –being highlighted in some studies. Looking into how these explanations are made the studies referred to student characteristics, different kinds of education measures, and variations in contextual circumstances as explanations. These analyzes presented what was regarded as significant results based on the strength in associations between categories and variables – e.g. how early differentiation in a school system is related to increased social inequity or how gender gaps differ between national contexts. To our understanding, ILSA research entails a particular kind of statistical analysis and construction of data for defining the world of education. One conclusion is that the ILSA research field is heterogeneous, when the subjects of its research are described. This point was supported by the rather fragmented research communication structure that we captured by means of analyses of journal publications citation of articles. However, considering the knowledge objects there is a homogeneous intellectual organization of ILSA in terms of what can be discussed in terms of style of reasoning. This refers to the ways research objects are formulated, how research inquiries are carried out, and what is considered as valid statements in this research process. There is an internal relation in the formulation of explanandum and explanans as knowledge object plus accepted procedures for accepting or rejecting statements concerning this relation –e.g. when comparing school performances among different parts of the population. This is to our understanding basic in the style of reason at work in international large-scale assessments. Such a style of reason sets limits as well as it opens for specific analyses and production of valid statements concerning the research problematic in focus.

  • 21.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    Komparativ pedagogik2018In: Pedagogik som vetenskap / [ed] Mattias Nilsson Sjöberg, Lund: Gleerups Utbildning AB, 2018, 1, p. 93-112Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 22.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    University of Gothenburg.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    On the intellectual organisation of international comparative research in Sweden2018Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 23.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science.
    "Slående hur PISA-forskningen missbrukas"2016In: Dagens samhälle, no 5 decemberArticle in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
    Abstract [sv]

    Vi kommer nu att få läsa tvärsäkra uttalanden om vad Pisa-resultaten står för och vad som behöver göras med svensk skola. Olika aktörer – partipolitiska såväl som kommersiella - kommer att se resultaten som tekniska mått på skolans kvalitet. Det är problematiskt av flera skäl, skriver två skolforskare.

  • 24.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Education.
    Popkewitz, Thomas
    University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    A review of the field of international comparisons of school performances and their educational and political impact over time2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 25.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Education.
    Popkewitz, Thomas
    University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    International Comparisons of School Results: A Systematic Review of Research on Large Scale Assessments in Education2015Report (Refereed)
  • 26.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Education.
    Popkewitz, Thomas S
    University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    Systemic Review of Research on International Comparisons of School Results2015Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 27.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Pettersson, DanielUniversity of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science. Uppsala universitet.Popkewitz, Thomas StanleyUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.
    Education by the Numbers and the Making of Society: The Expertise of International Assessments2018Collection (editor) (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    International statistical comparisons of nations have become commonplace in the contemporary landscape of education policy and social science. This book engages the emergence of these international comparisons as a particular style of reasoning about education, society, and science. It examines how international educational assessments have come to dominate much of contemporary policymaking concerning school system performance, and explores the social and cultural principles embodied in them as "rationales" to shape and fashion what is possible to rectify social issues.

  • 28.
    Lindblad, Sverker
    et al.
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science.
    Wärvik, Gun-Britt
    Göteborgs universitet.
    International Comparisons and the Re-modelling of Walfare State Education2017Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 29.
    Molstad, Christina
    et al.
    Hedmark University College, Elverum, Norway.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    Forsberg, Eva
    Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Legitimization of knowledge: policy versus research by PISA and TIMSS2016In: NERA 2016, Social Justice, Equality and Solidarity in Education: Book of Abstracts, 2016, p. 148-149Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In society, different testsof educational performance have been given importance in policy initiatives, curriculum change, as well as in media. Throughout the last 15 years, the educational assessment programs PISA and TIMSS have been reference points for general economic and social policies and influential for national educational policy (Pettersson 2014). Research using PISA-and TIMSS-data and results are recurrently referred to in media debates (Forsberg & Román 2014) and in arguments for policy reforms and curriculum development. Given the importance of this discourse as a social practice it is crucial to take into account how International Large-Scale Assessment (ILSA) research is institutionalized.

    The main objective of this study is to enlarge our understanding about key actors and the legitimation and dissemination of different kinds of knowledge within the ILSA-research field. We analyse research articles reporting and discussing PISA and TIMSS data, respectively. Our corpus consists of articles published in international peer-reviewed journals and represents a selection of “high-impact” articles present in Web of Sciences. We focus on the disciplinary belonging of the journals and the affiliation of the authors of the articles as well as the publications referred in the articles. In addition, we pay attention to other articles referencing the PISA and TIMSS articles in our corpus.

    Our specific research questions are: what is the difference between actors and knowledge legitimized by the selected PISA and TIMSS articles? This is investigated by exploring which authors, fields and countries that are connected to the corpus through the method of scientometrics, which has demonstrated a potential in using research-databases for studying patterns of research activity.

    Our findings illuminate that there is a substantial difference in actors defining the discourse within PISA and TIMSS. TIMSS research is more internationally spread. In PISA research there was a large bias towards English speaking westernized nations in dissemination. For TIMSS research, USA and Germany are the most evident countries for author affiliation, and Egypt is the third most common country, followed by countries like People’s Republic of China and Turkey. Additionally within PISA research it was possible to observe two substantial key nodes of research environments. Notes of research are also evident in TIMSS research, but in comparison to PISA they are not that dominant. This also holds true concerning journals for publishing -TIMSS articles are more spreadin terms of different journals. Finally, connected to the PISA articles there is a connection between the research fields of education and psychology in framing the context of the phenomenon in focus as a new mode of global educational governance as well as reformulation of the relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation. This is not identified in the TIMSS articles, where education research is dominant. Based on our findings the PISA research field seems more aligned with an external political discourse while the TIMSS research field appears to be constituted primarily by an internal research discourse.

  • 30.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för pedagogik.
    Bakgrunden till PISA: Programme for International Student Assessment2003In: Skolan och tusenårsskiftet: En vänbok till Ulf P Lundgren / [ed] Eva Forsberg, Uppsala: Uppsala universitet , 2003Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 31.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för pedagogik.
    Barnets århundrade: Radikalism på konservativ grund2003In: Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy, ISSN 1652-2729, Vol. 1Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 32.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science.
    En tankestil och dess gränser: exemplifierat genom en räknande häst, en talande papegoja och en teckenspråkstalande schimpans2016In: Att ta utbildningens komplexitet på allvar: en vänskrift till Eva Forsberg / [ed] Maja Elmgren, Maria Folke-Fichtelius, Stina Hallsén, Henrik Román, Wieland Wermke, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2016, p. 106-120Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 33.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för pedagogik.
    I skuggan av PISA2009In: Pedagogiska Magasinet, ISSN 1401-3320, no 09/09Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 34.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education.
    International Large-Scale Assessments in Education: The Social and Intellectual Organization of a Research Field2018Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper is the result of a systematic research review of international comparisons in education by means of International Large-Scale Assessments (ILSA). We ask what research has been carried out and which research results and conclusions are presented in this field of study. We begin by identifying a large set of research publications in the field – more than 11 000 articles are identified by means of search engines for the period 2004-2017. The PISA- and TIMSS-research programmes and the CIVED/ICCS research programme on civics education are chosen – in sum more than 8 000 publications. In the task of assessing research quality, we include peer reviewed scientific articles and primary research on international comparisons. When mapping and synthesizing research it is important to capture arguments and conclusions in a broad field that vary in terms of study- and knowledge objects. A broad result concerns what needs to be explained. We note that the reviewed articles commonly identify achievement gaps over population taxonomies, e.g. classifications in terms of social class or gender, thus pointing to inequities and how they are associated with different kinds of education measures or contextual variations, such as gender inequity coefficients in different countries. To a much lesser extent the differences in efficiency are analyzed, e.g. school performances over educational measures or school systems. We have also found research that analyzes how to redirect or govern students into certain careers – often in science. Examining how these explanations are formulated, the studies often refer to student characteristics, different kinds of education measures and variations in the contextual circumstances. These analyses present what is regarded as significant results based on the strength of association between categories and variables, e.g. how early differentiation in a school system is related to increased social inequity, or how gender gaps differ between national contexts. To our understanding, ILSA research entails a particular kind of statistical analysis and construction of data in order to define the world of education. One conclusion is that the ILSA research field is heterogeneous when the subjects of its research are described. This point is supported by the rather fragmented research communication structure that is captured by analyzing how journal publications quote or reference articles. However, with regard to knowledge objects, there is a homogeneous intellectual organization of ILSA in terms of what can be discussed as style of reasoning. This refers to the ways in which research objects are formulated, how research inquiries are carried out and what are considered as valid statements in this research process. There is an internal relation in the formulation of explanandum and explanans as knowledge objects and accepted procedures for accepting or rejecting statements concerning this relation, e.g. when comparing school performances in different parts of the population. We understand this to be the kind of reasoning that is at work in international large-scale assessments. Such reasoning also sets limits, in that it lends itself to specific analyses and the production of valid statements about the research problem in focus.

  • 35.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Culture Studies, Religious Studies and Educational Sciences, Education.
    Internationell kunskapsbedömning som inslag i nationell styrning av skolan2010In: Vuxenutbildning i samverkan, 2010Conference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 36.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för pedagogik.
    Internationell kunskapsbedömning som inslag i nationell styrning av skolan2008Doctoral thesis, monograph (Other academic)
  • 37.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för pedagogik.
    Internationella jämförande kunskapsmätningar2006In: Skolans kontrollregim - ett kontraproduktivt system för styrning?: en antologi / [ed] Eva Forsberg & Erik Wallin, Stockholm: HLS Förlag , 2006Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 38.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för didaktik.
    Internationella jämförande kunskapsmätningar i ett utbildningspolitiskt perspektiv2009In: PISA, pedagogik och politik i Finland / [ed] Mikael Uljens, Åbo Akademi: Pedagogiska fakulteten , 2009Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 39.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Culture Studies, Religious Studies and Educational Sciences, Education.
    Internationella kunskapsmätningar: När, Hur och Varför?2013Conference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 40.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Culture Studies, Religious Studies and Educational Sciences, Education.
    Internationella kunskapsmätningar och deras funktioner2010In: Bedömning i och av skolan: Praktik, principer, politik / [ed] Christian Lundahl & Maria Folke-Fichtelius, Lund: Studentlitteratur , 2010, p. 259-274Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 41. Pettersson, Daniel
    Internationella kunskapsmätningars rationalitet och funktion2016In: Bedömning i och av skolan: praktik, principer, politik / [ed] Christian Lundahl & Maria Folke-Fichtelius, Lund: Studentlitteratur AB, 2016Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 42.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för pedagogik.
    Kris i skolan eller i skolpolitiken?2009In: Nämnaren : tidskrift för matematikundervisning, ISSN 0348-2723, Vol. 36, no 3Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 43.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för pedagogik.
    Kunskapsbedömning: ett komparativt paradigm2008Report (Other academic)
  • 44.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för pedagogik.
    Läxor: en oreglerad bedömningspraktik2005In: Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy, ISSN 1652-2729, Vol. 1Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 45.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Culture Studies, Religious Studies and Educational Sciences, Education.
    National interpretations of OECD:s PISA studies2012Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 46.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Culture Studies, Religious Studies and Educational Sciences, Education.
    Om internationella kunskapsmätningar, jämförande pedagogik och nationella resultatkulturer2013In: Läsning! / [ed] Gustaf Skar & Michael Tengberg, Stockholm: Svensklärarföreningen , 2013, p. 169-187Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 47.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Department of Education and Psychology, Ämnesavdelningen för pedagogik.
    Politics of Assessments: International organizations and globalization of educational steering2003In: Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy, ISSN 1652-2729, Vol. 3Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 48.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Culture Studies, Religious Studies and Educational Sciences, Education.
    Revisiting Narratives of Large Scale Assessments: Comparative Education Review (1974 & 1987), and European Educational Research Journal (2012) compared2013Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 49.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Educational sciences, Educational science, Education. Uppsala universitet.
    Skolkris och internationella jämförande kunskapsmätningar: siffran och jämförelsens hegemoni2016In: Vägval i skolans historia, ISSN 2002-0147, no 1Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 50.
    Pettersson, Daniel
    University of Gävle, Faculty of Education and Business Studies, Department of Culture Studies, Religious Studies and Educational Sciences, Education.
    Snäv mätning styr skolpolitiken2013In: Svenska Dagbladet, no 3 decemberArticle, book review (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
12 1 - 50 of 90
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf