Commercialising comparison: Pearson puts the TLC in soft capitalism

Abstract

This paper provides a critical policy analysis of The Learning Curve (TLC) (2012), an initiative developed by the multinational edu-business, Pearson, in conjunction with the Economist Intelligence Unit. TLC exemplifies the commercialising of comparison and the efforts of edu-businesses to strategically position themselves in education policy processes globally. In analysing TLC, our account seeks to proffer a critical analysis of this emerging policy genre, and the way it functions as part of the new ‘soft capitalism’. We analyse TLC in relation to Pearson’s new business strategy, which emphasises corporate social responsibility and accountability to consumers for the efficacy of its products and services. We argue that Pearson is now generating and appropriating various data to legitimise its products and services according to a ‘neo-social’ mode of accountability. Network ethnography is employed to document the global networks of both people and data associated with TLC and we reflect on the emergence of Pearson as a potential education policy actor.

Keywords:

• Pearson
• policy
• neo-social
• data
• accountability
• network ethnography
• comparison

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Our analysis of TLC differs from that proffered recently by Williamson (2015), who has examined the data visualisation element of TLC. He links this analysis to future developments of big data that will facilitate real-time adaptive learning technologies. Further, Williamson suggests that, along with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Pearson is now one of the ‘dominant global centres of calculation’ (12). We think this probably overstates the current status and standing of Pearson’s TLC. Our argument is that Pearson is working towards such an outcome on a global scale, rather than having achieved it. We analyse TLC from this perspective.

2. This paper was previously withdrawn from review at another quality journal, as the Editorial Board requested the deletion of the network diagram. The basis of this request was concern that the policy actors represented here might be upset by their implied relationships to Pearson. Communication with some of these individuals confirmed the variability of their relationships with Pearson and the varying extent of understanding of the basis for their involvement. Despite the acknowledged shortcomings of this methodology then, the response of the Editorial Board indicates the power of such network diagrams to imply a set of relationships from which Pearson seeks to benefit.