We examine how the technology industry intervenes in social domains not directly tied to its products, services, and immediate commercial concerns. We intend to develop a framework for considering the ways technology and the technology industry reshape these domains in ways both intended and unintended. Drawing on sociologies of knowledge and technology and a set of 20 semi-structured interviews with technology workers and HR professionals working in the Israeli facilities of two large multi-national technology firms, we find evidence that the intervention allows the industry to re-purpose public education as a means of nurturing a firm’s workforce with the goal of remaining competitive in a tight labor market both nationally and globally. In parallel, the programs allow workers to experience satisfying and pleasant interactions. These re-purposing interventions might aggravate existing education inequality while further cementing the legitimacy of a dominant industry as a model for an idealized commercial society.
AppleMW (2006) Understanding and interrupting neoliberalism and neoconservatism in education. Pedagogies: An International Journal1(1): 21–26.
2.
BenklerY (2016) Degrees of freedom, dimensions of power. Daedalus145(1): 18–32.
3.
BerkovichIFoldesJV (2012) Third sector involvement in public education: The Israeli case. Journal of Educational Administration50(2): 173–187.
4.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
BourdieuPWacquantLJD (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
6.
BulkleyKEBurchP (2011) The changing nature of private engagement in public education: For-profit and nonprofit organizations and educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education86(3): 236–251.
7.
CareyJ (1989) Technology and ideology: The case of the telegraph. In: CareyJ (ed.) Communication as Culture. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, pp. 201–237.
8.
Central Bureau of Statistics (2017) ICT Sector Estimate for 2016: 0.7% Increase in GDP. Jerusalem, Israel: Central Bureau of Statistics.
9.
CornelissenJPWernerMD (2014) Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals8(1): 181–235.
10.
Dagan-BuzagloN (2010) Privatization in the Israeli School System: Selected Issues. Tel Aviv, Israel: Adva Center.
11.
DavidsonE (2015) Responsible girls: The spatialized politics of feminine success and aspiration in a divided Silicon Valley, USA. Gender, Place & Culture22(3): 390–404.
12.
DreznerD (2017) The Ideas Industry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
DrorY (2015) “We are not here for the money”: Founders’ manifestos. New Media & Society17(4): 540–555.
14.
EyalGBuchholzL (2010) From the sociology of intellectuals to the sociology of interventions. Annual Review of Sociology36(1): 117–137.
15.
FisherE (2010) Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age: The Spirit of Networks. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
GershonI (2017) Down and Out in the New Economy: How People Find (Or Don’t Find) Work Today. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
17.
GregoryJAgarJLockSHarrisS (2008) Public engagement of science in the private sector: A new form of PR? In BauerMWBucchiM (eds) Journalism, Science and Society. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 215–226.
HarveyD (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press
20.
HoffmannALProferesNZimmerM (2016) “Making the world more open and connected”: Mark Zuckerberg and the discursive construction of Facebook and its users. New Media & Society20(1): 199–218.
21.
Israel Innovation Authority (2017) 2017: Innovation in Israel, a Snapshot. Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Innovation Authority.
22.
KreissDMcGregorSC (2018) Technology firms shape political communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S. Presidential cycle. Political Communication35(2): 155–177.
23.
KundaG (2009) Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-tech Corporation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
24.
LevinaMHasinoffAA (2016) The Silicon Valley ethos: Tech industry products, discourses, and practices. Television & New Media18(6): 489–495.
25.
LipmanP (2013) The New Political Economy of Urban Education: Neoliberalism, Race, and the Right to the City. London: Taylor & Francis.
26.
LustigDBenvenistiE (2014) The multinational corporation as “the good despot”: The democratic costs of privatization in global settings. Theoretical Inquiries in Law15(1): 125–158.
Martín-SempereMJGarzón-GarciaBRey-RochaJ (2008) Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid science fair. Public Understanding of Science17: 349–367.
29.
MarwickAE (2013) Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
MazuzHYKrilZ (2017) A Springboard to High-tech. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Finance.
31.
MichaeliN (2015) Privatization in the education system. In: GalnurIPazA fuxZionN (eds) State Responsibility and the Boundaries between the Public and the Private. Tel Aviv, Israel: Van Leer Institute, pp. 183–237.
32.
MillJS (1861) Considerations on Representative Government. New York, NY: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
33.
MoscoV (2004) The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
NandiAMandernachM (2016) Hackathons as an informal learning platform. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education, Memphis, TN, 2–5 March 2016, pp. 346–351. New York: ACM.
35.
NeffG (2012) Venture Labor: Work and the Burden of Risk in Innovative Industries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
PlantinJ-CLagozeCEdwardsPN (2016) Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society20(1): 293–310.
38.
PopielP (2018) The tech lobby: Tracing the contours of new media elite lobbying power. Communication, Culture and Critique11(4): 566–585.
39.
RappleyeJ (2011) Catalysing educational development or institutionalising external influence? Donors, civil society and educational policy formation in Nepal. Globalisation, Societies and Education9(1): 27–49.
RossEWGibsonRJ (2007) Neoliberalism and Education Reform. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
42.
RussakoffD (2015) The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
43.
SenorDSingerS (2009) Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle. New York, NY: Twelve.
44.
ShamirR (2008) The age of responsibilization: On market-embedded morality. Economy and Society37(1): 1–19.
45.
SimsC (2017) Disruptive Fixation: School Reform and the Pitfalls of Techno-idealism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
TamirEDavidsonR (2011) Staying above the fray: Framing and conflict in the coverage of education policy debates. American Journal of Education117(2): 233–265. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/657889 (accessed 7 March 2014).
47.
TamirEYeminiMTuckerK (2019) NGO-school interactions as portrayed by elite and popular press in Israel and England. Journal of Educational Administration57: 361–375.
48.
TurnerF (2006) From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
TurnerFLarsonC (2015) Network celebrity: Entrepreneurship and the new public intellectuals. Public Culture27(175): 53–84.
51.
WellsASSlaytonJScottJ (2002) Defining democracy in the neoliberal age: Charter school reform and educational consumption. American Educational Research Journal39(2): 337–361.
52.
WilliamsonB (2018) Silicon startup schools: Technocracy, algorithmic imaginaries and venture philanthropy in corporate education reform. Critical Studies in Education59(2): 218–236.
