Our Publications

This paper discusses data governance models for educational platforms that could better protect students’ and teachers’ privacy and reduce data management burdens for teachers and administrators. Within an ethnographic study involving four Swedish secondary schools and municipal- and national-level administrators working with educational technology, we conduct qualitative interviews informed by educational data-tracing activities done with the help of computational methods from infrastructure studies. We highlight the extractive nature of the current data governance model, and demonstrate the power imbalances inherent to it, the uncertainties surrounding big tech companies’ data management practices, the burdens placed on teachers and administrators, and the fragmentation of the data/platform ecosystem. This allows us to engage in conceptual analysis of the desirability and feasibility of three alternative data governance schemes as applied to education: personal information management systems (which enable individuals to make data-related decisions), data trusts (expert bodies handling data governance in a fiduciary way) and data cooperatives (which steward data in a decentralised fashion through participatory and democratic decision-making). We conclude that data trusts offer the best response to the concerns identified through our infrastructural and ethnographic study, while also being the most feasible to implement in a variety of school systems.

Set in the near future, this chapter takes an adversarial design fiction approach to examine how ‘intelligence as infrastructure’ reorganises education. A fiction of artificial intelligence (AI) empire explores the financialisation of schooling exposed by labour market upheaval, the fragmentation that follows as municipalities depend on opaque platform providers, and a state response that asserts algorithmic nationalism through a civic foundation model-based AI system. As the story progresses, decision-making moves away from classrooms into financial, technical, and security infrastructures, raising questions of accountability, auditability, and sovereignty. The method is speculative rather than predictive, exploring design fiction and adversarial design to stage value conflicts that remain largely invisible in routine practice. Conceptually, the chapter extends platform studies in education by treating AI foundation models as upstream infrastructures. Practically, it renders discussable which arrangements of policy, procurement, and pedagogy might protect public values when learning depends on privately owned, algorithmic systems. Although situated in Sweden, the analysis has broader relevance for education systems wrestling with digital sovereignty, corporate dependency, and interest in human-centred practices. It closes with provocations on ownership and obligation, education after delegation, and counter infrastructures that support plurality, accountability, and creative civic life in schools.

This study aims to develop a set of heuristics tailored for evaluating learning analytics in simulation-based professional learning, focusing on the following research questions: (1) What heuristics are appropriate for evaluating learning analytics in simulation-based professional learning contexts? (2) How can theoretical frameworks and empirical findings be combined in the development of such heuristics? (3) How can expert evaluation inform their refinement and applicability? The study combines a top-down approach, drawing on a theoretical framework for learning experience design, with a bottom-up analysis of empirical findings from prior studies in the context of a design project. An initial set of heuristics was iteratively reviewed and refined in collaboration with experts in user and learning experience design. The outcome is a detailed heuristic framework that supports the evaluation of learning analytics in simulation-based settings and accounts for the technological, pedagogical, and social dimensions of professional learning.

Background The metaverse has the potential to transform healthcare and healthcare education by offering immersive, interactive experiences. As research on the metaverse rapidly expands, a synthesis is required to understand its current state, trends, and future directions in healthcare. Methods We conducted a mapping review of existing review studies on the metaverse in healthcare using topic modeling, hierarchical clustering, and qualitative interpretation. This was complemented by computational text analysis to examine thematic developments and structural patterns. Results The analysis yielded three distinct clusters: (1) immersive therapeutic and educational applications with intelligent integration, (2) immersive technologies for surgical training and clinical simulation, and (3) integrated, immersive, and intelligent technologies for personalized, networked healthcare. These clusters illustrate a shift from conceptual exploration toward applied, system-level integration. Applications show promise in mental health, surgical education, and personalized care, among others, but the evidence is preliminary. Key risks include privacy concerns, governance gaps, and equity challenges. Conclusions As enthusiasm for metaverse technologies grows, it is crucial to ensure that optimism does not outpace evidence and readiness. The metaverse offers significant opportunities for human-centered healthcare and professional training, but it requires rigorous validation, ethical frameworks, and inclusive design. To ensure responsible adoption and a sustainable impact, it is critical to align developments with the WHO's strategic objectives of collaboration, implementation, governance, and human-centered systems.

Hannes Lundkvist och Per Apelmo beskriver i sin text tillämpandet av en modell, på samma gång pedagogisk och vetenskapligt metodologisk, av författarna identifierad som en gestalt vilken de kallar ”musik-dikt-tystnad”. Gestaltens sammanhang kan vara pedagogiskt eller terapeutiskt. Utgångspunkten är deltagarna själva och deras livssituationer, den ”intra-aktion med andra människor, ting, ljud, känslor, erfarenheter” i vilken de som människor alltid befinner sig och blir till.

Despite the increasing interest in learning analytics over the past decade, there remains relatively little integration with pedagogical practice in higher education. The limited engagement of teachers in the design and development of teacher facing dashboards has been cited as a significant issue. As the purpose of a teacher facing dashboard is to enable deep insights into student learning as a basis for data-driven decision making, successful integration depends on compatibility with pedagogical needs and intentions. In this paper, we outline findings from a series of focus groups with nautical simulator instructors ( n = 12) from three different universities in Sweden, Norway and Finland. During focus groups, the design concept of multimodal learning analytics was presented and discussed, with focus on the usefulness of a teacher-facing learning analytics dashboard in addressing typical instructional concerns during simulation-based training. In the analysis, we focus on the juxtaposition between user wants, needs and resistance, prioritizing the simulator instructors’ pedagogical concerns in learning analytics design. The findings highlight a crucial gap between the technological capabilities of learning analytics and the practical, everyday challenges of teaching in simulation-based environments. To bridge this gap, it is essential to design dashboards that are not only professionally intuitive and data-rich but also adaptable to the specific pedagogical strategies of instructors. Ultimately, successful implementation depends on a user-centred design process that integrates instructors’ perspectives, ensuring that learning analytics tools align with the complexities of simulation-based training.

As the digital landscape of education continues to evolve, learning analytics has become an integral tool for understanding, measuring, and improving student outcomes. However, a significant gap remains in the design and implementation of these technologies, particularly in their ability to cater to the diverse cognitive and neurological profiles of students. This conceptual paper highlights the need for a neuroinclusive approach to learning analytics, arguing that current practices in educational technology risk excluding neurodivergent students by reinforcing a neurotypical-centric design. In doing so, the paper highlights the limitations of existing frameworks and offers suggestions for how learning analytics can become more inclusive to better serve all students, especially those with undiagnosed or undisclosed neurodivergence.

Interest is growing in how private–public policy spaces shape Education Technology (EdTech), not only through Big Tech, the rise of edu-businesses, and EdTech brokering (Candido et al., 2023; Ortegón et al., 2024), but also through the hybrid and networked forms of EdTech policy events (Decuypere et al., 2024; Lewis, 2023). EdTech trade fairs act as policy network events that mobilise actors and resources, highlight power asymmetries, and legitimise particular agendas for school digitalisation (Player-Koro et al., 2018, 2022; see also Gulson & Witzenberger, 2022, for AI policy). This paper draws on a decade of ethnographic research conducted at Swedish EdTech events within the Nordic context, recognised as significant policy spaces since 2013. It synthesises over ten years of event ethnography by addressing both the epistemic and organisational policy dimensions. First, it examines how educational problems are framed, transformed, and disrupted argumentatively, also relatively Nordic welfare transformations. Second, it analyses the mobilities and temporalities of EdTech policy events (Peck & Theodore, 2015; Lewis, 2023). Theoretically, EdTech events are conceptualised as immersive, hybrid (online/offline) and real-time policy enactments. The analysis draws on policy mobility approaches (Lewis, 2023), situating EdTech events within broader transformations of welfare governance and private–public policy networks. In the findings, particular attention is given to the epistemic and methodological implications of EdTech’s recurring “crisis” responses, evident during the pandemic and its aftermath. Such responses now drive policy programmes and techno-solutionism around educational performance, digital backlash, cybersecurity, and Generative or “Responsible” AI. Key actors include education ministries, NGOs, and global actors Microsoft, Google, Open AI, the OECD and UNESCO. Alternative policy formations emphasising reparation, care, and democracy (Sriprakash et al., 2024) are also discussed in relation to the findings. References: Candido, H. H. D., Seppänen, P., & Thrupp, M. (2023). Business as the new doxa in education? An analysis of edu-business events in Finland. European Educational Research Journal, 23(1), 48-71. Decuypere, M., et al. (2025). Tracing the infrastructural unfolding of (edtech) events through hybrid team ethnography. Learning, Media and Technology, 1-15. Gulson, K. N., & Witzenberger, K. (2020). Repackaging authority: artificial intelligence, automated governance and education trade shows. Journal of Education Policy, 37(1), 145–160. Lewis, S. (2023). (Re)drawing Lines in Our Research: Using Policy Mobilities and Network Ethnography to Research Global Policy Networks in Education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(4), 646–653. Ortegón, C., Decuypere, M., & Williamson, B. (2024). Mediating educational technologies: Edtech brokering between schools, academia, governance, and industry. Research in Education, 120(1), 35–53. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2015). Fast policy: Experimental Statecraft at the Thresholds of Neoliberalism. University of Minnesota Press. Player-Koro, C., Bergviken Rensfeldt, A., & Selwyn, N. (2017). Selling tech to teachers: education trade shows as policy events. Journal of Education Policy, 1–22. Player-Koro, C., Jobér, A. & Bergviken Rensfeldt, A. (2022). De-politicised Effects with Networked Governance? Ethnography and Education 17 (1), 1–16. Sriprakash, A., Williamson, B., Facer, K., Pykett, J., & Valladares Celis, C. (2024). Sociodigital futures of education: reparations, sovereignty, care, and democratisation. Oxford Review of Education, 1–18.