The performative power of (non)human agency assemblages of soft governance

References

• Ahmed, S. (2004). Affective economies. Social Text 79, 22(2), 117–139.10.1215/01642472-22-2_79-117
   Google Scholar
• Ahmed, S. (2010). Orientations matter. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp. 234–257). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. (2008). Introduction: Emerging models of materiality in feminist theory. In S. Alaimo & S. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms (pp. 1–19). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Antunes, F. (2006). Globalisation and Europeification of education policies: Routes, processes and metamorphoses. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 38–55.10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.38
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. (1996). Meeting the Universe halfway: Realism and social constructivism without contradiction. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (Vol. 256, pp. 161–194). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. (2001). Re(con)figuring space, time, and matter. In M. DeKoven (Ed.), Feminist locations. global and local, theory and practice. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831.
   Google Scholar
• Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822388128
   Google Scholar
• Bjerg, H., & Staunæs, D. (2011). Self-management through shame: Uniting Governmentality studies and the ‘Affective Turn’. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organizations, 11(2), 138–156.
   Google Scholar
• Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brøgger, K. (2014). The ghosts of higher education reform: On the organisational processes surrounding policy borrowing. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 12(4), 520–541.10.1080/14767724.2014.901905
   Google Scholar
• Brøgger, K. (2016a). Du skal ville det, du skal. Om de videregående uddannelsers nye tilskyndelsesøkonomi. Dansk Pædagogisk Tidsskrift (Danish Journal of Education), 2, 87–99.
   Google Scholar
• Brøgger, K. (2016b). The rule of mimetic desire in higher education: Governing through naming, shaming and faming. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(1), 72–91.10.1080/01425692.2015.1096191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brøgger, K. (2018). The Faceless Masters of Higher Education. Governing through standards. Educational Governance Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brøgger, K., & Clausen, T. (2017). Uddannelsesstyring og-forvaltning. In A. K. Ljungdalh, J. Lysgaard, & O. Tafdrup (Eds.), Uddannelsesvidenskab: En kritisk introduktion (pp. 155–174). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Brøgger, K., & Staunæs, D. (2016). Standards and (self)implosion: How the circulation of affects accelerates the spread of standards and intensifies the embodiment of colliding, temporal ontologies. Theory & Psychology, 26(2), 223–242. doi:10.1177/0959354316635889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busch, L. (2007). Measuring up: How standards shape our lives (quoated in Lawn & Grek 2012). Invited paper presented at the Economic and Social Research Council Genomics and Policy Forum, University of Edinburgh, May.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, J. (2010). Performative agency. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(2), 147–161.10.1080/17530350.2010.494117
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. (2010). Performativity, misfires and politics. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(2), 163–169.10.1080/17530350.2010.494119
   Google Scholar
• Cheah, P. (2010). Non-dialectical materialism. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp. 70–91). Durham, NC: Duke University press.
   Google Scholar
• Clough, P., & Halley, J. (2007). The affective turn. Theorizing the social. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822389606
   Google Scholar
• Coole, D., & Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the new materialisms. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp. 1–43). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cort, P., & Brøgger, K. (2017). Policy analyse – forskning i og for uddannelsespolitik. In A. K. Ljungdalh, J. Lysgaard, & O. Tafdrup (Eds.), Uddannelsesvidenskab – en kritisk introduktion (pp. 175–198). Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Czempiel, E.-O. (1992). Governance and democratization. In J. N. Rosenau & E.-O. Czempiel (Eds.), Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dale, R. (2004). Forms of governance, governmentality and the EU’s open method of coordination. In W. Larner & W. Walters (Eds.), Global governmentality (pp. 174–194). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Damgaard, E. (1997). The political roles of Danish MPs. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3(1), 79–90. doi:10.1080/13572339708420500
   Google Scholar
• Derrida, J. (1982). Positions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dolphijn, R., & van der Tuin, I. (2012). New materialism: Interviews & cartographies. Open Humanities Press.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (1991). COM (91) 349 final: Memorandum on Higher Education in the European Community. Brussels 5 November 1991. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2015). The European higher education area in 2015: Bologna process implementation report. Luxembourg.
   Google Scholar
• European Council. (2000, March 23 and 24). The Lisbon strategy/agenda. Lisbon.
   Google Scholar
• European Union (EU). (1992). The Maastricht treaty. Maastricht: Treaty on European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2011). Considering materiality in educational policy: Messy objects and multiple reals. Educational Theory, 61(6), 709–726.10.1111/edth.2011.61.issue-6
   Google Scholar
• Gornitzka, Å. (2005). Coordinating policies for a ‘Europe of knowledge’: Emerging practices of the ‘Open Method of Coordination’ in education and research. Arena working papers, 16, 1–40.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hekman, S. (2008). Constructing the ballast: An ontology for feminism. In S. Alaimo & S. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms (pp. 85–119). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hekman, S. (2010). The material of knowledge: Feminist disclosures. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Henckel, O., & Wright, S. (2008). The Bologna process: A voluntary method of coordination and marketisation? Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education policy. Oxford: IAU Press & Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Huisman, J., & Van der Wende, M. (2004). The EU and Bologna: Are supra- and international initiatives threatening domestic agendas? Europan Journal of Education, 39(3), 349–357.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, A. Y. (2013). Posthumanist data analysis of mangling practices. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 741–748. doi:10.1080/09518398.2013.788762
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, M. L. F., Kjeldsen, A. M., & Pallesen, T. (2016). Distribueret ledelse i offentlige serviceorganisationer. Politica, 48(2), 208–227.
   Google Scholar
• Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice. An activity based approach. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Micro strategy and strategizing: Towards an activity-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 3–22.10.1111/1467-6486.t01-2-00002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juelskjær, M., & Staunæs, D. (2016). Orchestrating intensities and rhythms: How post-psychologies are assisting new educational standards and reforming subjectivities. Theory & Psychology, 26(2), 182–201. doi:10.1177/0959354316634217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juelskjær, M., Staunæs, D., & Ratner, H. (2013). The return of the Freudian Couch® : Managing affectivity through technologies of comfort. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(9), 1132–1152.10.1080/09518398.2013.816885
   Google Scholar
• Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna process and the Lisbon research agenda: The European commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 203–223.10.1111/ejed.2006.41.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Krejsler, J. B., Olsson, U., & Petersson, K. (2014). The transnational grip on Scandinavian education reforms: The open method of coordination challenging national policy-making. Nordic Studies in Education, 34(3), 172–186.
   Google Scholar
• Lascoumes, P, & Gales, P. L. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(1), 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1992). One more turn after the social turn. In E. McMullin (Ed.), The social dimensions of science (pp. 272–292). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005a). How to talk about the body, the normative dimensions of science studies. Body and Society, 10(2–3), 209–249.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2005b). Reassembling the social : An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawn, M. (2011). Standardizing the European education policy space. European Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 259–272.10.2304/eerj.2011.10.2.259
   Google Scholar
• Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education: Governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium Books.10.15730/books.78
   Google Scholar
• Magalhães, A., & Amaral, A. (2009). Mapping out discourses on higher education governance. In J. Huisman (Ed.), International perspectives on the governance of higher education: Alternative frameworks for coordination. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, H.-D., & Benavot, A. E. (Eds.). (2013). PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance. Oxford: Symposium Books.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, G. J. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 203–225. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 74–89). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822384151
   Google Scholar
• Nash, C. (2000). Performativity in practice: Some recent work in cultural geography., 24(4), 653–664.
   Google Scholar
• Neave, G., & Maassen, P. (2007). The Bologna process: An intergovernmental policy perspective. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration (pp. 135–154). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S., & Yanow, D. (2003). Introduction: Toward a practice-based view of knowing and learning in organizations. In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi, & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Nóvoa, A., & Lawn, M. (2002). Fabricating Europe: The formation of an education space. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/0-306-47561-8
   Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(09), 1435–1448.10.1177/0170840607081138
   Google Scholar
• Pasias, G., & Roussakis, Y. (2012). ‘Who marks the bench?’ A critical review of the neo-European ‘paradigm shift’ through higher education policies and discourses. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), 127–141.
   Google Scholar
• Probyn, E. (2005). Blush: Faces of shame. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2009). Touching technologies, touching visions. The reclaiming of sensorial experience and the politics of speculative thinking. Subjectivity, 28, 297–315.
   Google Scholar
• Ravinet, P. (2008). From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: Why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna process. Europan Journal of Education, 43(3), 353–367.10.1111/ejed.2008.43.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regnér, P. (2008). Strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities: Steps towards a dynamic view of strategy. Human Relations, 61(4), 565–588.10.1177/0018726708091020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, S., & Keeling, R. (2008). Stirring the lions: Strategy and tactics in global higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(3), 221–240.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, N. S., & Miller, P. P. D. (2009). Governing the present : administering economic, social and personal life (Repr. ed.). Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenau, J. N. (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. In J. N. Rosenau & E.-O. Czempiel (Eds.), Governance without government: Order and change in world politics (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511521775
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. M. (2002a). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. M. (2002b). The tools approach and the new governance: Conclusion and implications. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. R. (2006). Organizations as they happen. Organization Studies, 27(12), 1863–1873.10.1177/0170840606071942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schatzki, T. R., Cetina, K. K., & Savigny, E. V. (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sedgwick, E. K., & Frank, A. (1995). SHAME and its sister: A Silvan Tomkins reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Staunæs, D. (2016). Notes on inventive methodologies and affirmative critiques of an affective edu-future. Research in Education (Manchester), 96(1), 62–70.10.1177/0034523716664580
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staunæs, D., & Pors, J. G. (2015). Thinking educational policy and management through (frictional) concepts of affects. In M. Clarke, K. N. Gulson, & E. B. Petersen (Eds.), Education policy, research and theories of the present (pp. 99–109). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2013). What is wrong with the what-went-right approach in educational policy? European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 20–33.
   Google Scholar
• Thrift, N. (2000). Performing cultures in the new economy. Annals of the association of American geographers, 90(4), 674–692.10.1111/0004-5608.00217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thrift, N. (2007). Non-representational theory: Space, politics and affect. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tomusk, V. (2007). Introduction. In V. Tomusk (Ed.), Creating the European area of higher education: Voices from the periphery (pp. 1–17). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Tsing, A. (2012). Worlding the Matsutake diaspora. Or, can actor-network theory experiment with holism? In T. Otto & N. Bubandt (Eds.), Experiments in holism. Theory and practice in contemporary anthropology. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Wetherell, M. (2012). Affect and emotion. A new social science understanding. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446250945
   Google Scholar
• White, S. K. (2000). Sustaining affirmation. The strengths of weak ontology in political theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5), 613–634. doi:10.1177/0170840606064101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, B. (2016). Digital education governance: Data visualization, predictive analytics, and ‘real-time’ policy instruments. Journal of Education Policy, 31(2), 123–141.10.1080/02680939.2015.1035758
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zito, A., Radaelli, C. M., & Jordan, A. (2003). Introduction to the symposium on ‘New Policy Instruments in the European Union’. Public Administration, 81(3), 509–511.10.1111/padm.2003.81.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar