The project began its work by conducting a comprehensive literature review , performed through a variety of disciplinary lenses such as sociology, science and technology studies and critical accountancy.
In parallel, one of the first steps of our work was to construct a full and detailed research design for each case study before commencing fieldwork. This work led to the conclusion that some adjustment was necessary, in order to yield insightful and original data. Therefore, although the cases on childhood poverty (case 2) and European education governance (case 3) remained unchanged, we decided to examine the production of the production of data for Sustainable Development Goal 4 (case 1). Secondly, although one of the four original cases was intending to examine the development of sustainable development indicators (case 4), we found that a focus on the issue of statistical capacity building within the SDG agenda would have to become our focal point of analysis.
During the first two years of the project, the team focused primarily on cases 1 and 2, and developed work on cases 3 and 4. In terms of childhood poverty, the team drew preliminary findings in relation to a. the production of numbers as a mechanism of coordination and consensus-making; b. the use of numbers as action and rhetorical frames; c. the use of numbers in the making of new policy instruments; d. the different ‘cultures of objectivity’ and different approaches to navigating quantification, depending on the organisation; and last but not least, e. the use of numbers as an advocacy tool, used to close controversies and harmonise complexity and diversity.
In terms of case study 1, on the SDG4, some of the project findings showed that a. metrics are produced by primarily experts with a disciplinary background in economics; b. numbers often mask controversies amongst actors (experts but also national representatives) over the usefulness, robustness and relevance of indicators chosen; c. there is a large amount of emphasis on statistical capacity building, the construction of a discourse around data as a public good and the democratisation of data; d. International Organisations’ most important function is not to produce new data but to construct consensus, mobilise, persuade and take countries on board; and finally e. the role of the data visualisation as a medium of communication, of story-telling and of the construction of numbers as ‘world-making’ for all users rather than just elite actors.
Case study 3 analysed how quantification, and specifically processes of data collection and measurement practices, have shaped the field of higher education in Europe. We found that there has been significant expansion and dominance of quality assurance processes and agencies, whose efforts focus primarily in collecting evidence, establish protocols of quality and thus have significant effects on the regulation and governance of the higher education policy space in Europe. Our analysis of this expanding and ever-evolving large field of actors – with some more and some less established ones- coincided with the introduction of new policy agendas in the field of European education and most notably, the introduction of the European Education Area. In parallel to these agendas, we see increasing focus on the collection of data on higher education across Europe and renewed efforts to strengthen their influence in increasing mobility.
Lastly, case study 4 focused on statistical capacity development and the work of key actors within the SDG space to establish improved statistical practices in countries of the Global South. The case examined the history and current developments of the movement for strengthening statistical capacity, and identified tensions between donor demands for development data and the nationally-owned approach that many declarations since the late 1990s called for.
