Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The concept of democracy is a central component in education policy at all levels, yet its meaning can be interpreted in a number of ways. This paper examines how democracy is conceptualised and utilised as a legitimising force driving education policy reform. More specifically, attention is given to the use of democracy in the process of promoting programming’s inclusion in the Swedish compulsory curriculum. A number of mass-media articles published in Swedish are analysed using the concept of floating signifiers. The context of Sweden is of particular interest, since the notion of democracy has been a driving force in Swedish society for the legitimisation of education policy changes. In this paper, we chose to approach the link between democracy and education from a critical perspective and ask how the concept of democracy is being utilized as a part of political struggles to hegemonize and legitimize educational changes. It is argued that democracy, as a floating signifier, was central to the discursive production of the educational agenda of programming and its legitimisation. This article aims to function as a critique of the promotion of programming in education as a means to democracy.

Keywords

Democracy education floating signifier democratic education programming education policy

Introduction

Education and democracy, as both processes and concepts, have been explored from a number of different perspectives, bringing with them different understandings of the terms (Dewey, 1966; Englund, 2000; Goodman, 1989). Amidst recent growing political instability, widening economic inequality and social unrest (Riddle et al., 2022), as well as the increased privatization of education systems (Apple, 2011), educational policies that aim to promote democracy are of critical importance. Whereas the importance of establishing a democratic environment with the help of education is widely accepted (Biesta, 2015; Gutmann, 1999), what democracy as a concept means is contested (Howarth, 2014; Sant, 2019). In this paper, we chose to approach the link between democracy and education from a critical perspective and ask how the concept of democracy is being utilized as a part of political struggles to hegemonize and legitimize educational changes. The recent educational reform of adding programming to the Swedish compulsory curriculum is taken as a point of departure.

In 2017, computer programming was formally introduced as a mandatory component of the primary school curriculum by the Swedish education authority. In official policy documents, justification for why computer programming should be taught in Swedish schools was rooted in the concept of democracy. More specifically, as early as 2015, a number of articles started appearing in mass-media sources arguing for the adding programming in schools as a means to democracy. This view was also shared by the Swedish Government, who stated that one of the reasons behind the new digitalization strategies in the education system – part of which was the addition of programming in schools – was the equal access to education by all (Regeringen, 2015). At the same time, the Swedish National Agency for Education and the Swedish Government addressed digital competence as a question of democracy (Regeringen, 2017), while the teaching of programming has been argued to have democratic aspects (Skolverket, 2018). These democratic-related arguments in relation to the recent addition of programming in Swedish schools led to our questioning of the use of democracy as an inherent benefit of having programming in education. Within the field of policy research, mass media is acknowledged for its significant role in the policy process, functioning both as a reflector and a creator of public opinion. Although the complete extent of media influence on the policy processes remains elusive, there is a shared recognition that media does impact how issues can be comprehended (Saraisky, 2016).

The aim of this article is to examine how the concept of democracy is utilised as a legitimising force for the addition of programming in the Swedish curriculum. We will begin by unfolding the concept of democracy in relation to the Swedish education system. Then, we will employ Laclau’s theoretical concept of ‘floating signifiers’ (Laclau, 2005) for the analysis of our empirical material. The empirical material consists of seven Swedish mass-media articles from six different newspapers, magazines, and websites.

Democracy and education

The concept of democracy is widely accepted as representing political systems that encourage equality and opportunity in society. According to Tilly (2007), varying definitions share the position that ‘a regime is democratic to the degree that political relations between the state and its citizens feature broad, equal, protected and mutually binding consultation’ but in form can differ in the capacity that the state is able to provide citizenship benefits (p. 13). In the educational sphere, how the concept is understood can influence who is included and what is taught in schools. Democratic education has the intent of creating democratic citizens, who have self-autonomy and the capacity for participation in society but is reproductive of that society (Gutmann, 1993). The concept of democracy itself can be defined differently according to its usage, target and the actors involved which inevitably shapes the society within which it exists. Macpherson (1975) frames democracy as being an ‘ambiguous thing, with different meanings – even apparently opposite meanings – for different peoples’ (p. 2). The difficulty of defining the concept of democracy is that nearly all parties present their own views as being democratic (Biesta, 2003). This inability to narrowly define democracy leads to many laying a claim to the concept and to the significance of the term being inclusive to the point of losing its meaning. In this vein, as society evolves so must curriculum, which, reflects their mutual dependency (Carr, 1998). Nevertheless, the growing prevalence of technology in our society, and consequently in curricula, tends to steer education disproportionately toward economic interests. Educational reforms that prioritize meeting stakeholders’ desires may inadvertently emphasize wants over needs, ultimately transforming education into a private commodity rather than fulfilling its intended role as a ‘public education of the public, for the public, and accountable to the public’ (Biesta et al., 2022: 1228).

Politics can’t be separated from education as the creation of curriculum, by its nature, is never neutrally conducted but rather the selection of knowledge in itself presents a vision of societal values (Apple, 1993; Page, 2006). These constructions are often political creations and are built on ‘underlying undebated truths, assumptions, and prerequisites’ (Elmersjö, 2020: 4). To provide a shared understanding of the variations of democracy in relation to education, Biesta (2003) describes education as being for or through democracy. Education for democracy describes a preparation of students for participation in society while education through democracy describes a modelling of a democratic action in the organization of the instruction. In an extensive literature review, Sant (2019) describes numerous different interpretations of democratic education within a larger field that use the term alternatively, representing different realities. Thus, Sant (2019) argues that democracy becomes a ‘floating signifier’ that functions as an ‘aspirational horizon’ which in turn is ‘interpreted differently by distinctive political discourses’ (p. 684). Similarly, democratic values are not easily represented in a curriculum (Wahlström, 2020). When democracy is treated as system to be taught it misses the opportunity to impart a perspective and the tools for recreating democratic values.

Democratic values have been given central importance within the Swedish education. Looking to the expansive reforms that took place in the 1960s in Sweden, democratic education was placed in the foreground and centred it around shared experiences, citizenship and collectivism (Englund, 1994a). Previous to these reforms, students’ education was predetermined by their social backgrounds and gave little opportunity for social mobility. In combination to establishing a national, shared curriculum, the reforms aimed to provide a shared educational experience for all and the promotion of citizenship rights were established as a key charge, positioning access to education as a citizenship right as part of a democratic education policy (Englund, 1994b). Democratic values were prioritized as a shared educational experience available across social classes (Blossing and Söderström, 2014). Within this context, the term democracy was used to describe togetherness in schooling and a shared experience where outcomes were not predetermined (Haug, 1999).

In the 1970s and 1980s, the organizational structure and effectiveness of this school model began to be criticized (Englund, 1994a). A new political climate led the view of democratic education policy towards being a ‘social, collective right to a vision of it as an individual civil right’ (Englund, 1994b: 388, 2005). This followed a larger global movement towards possessive individualism framing individuals as better administrators of their own needs and desires than the state and ultimately leading to a shift toward the decentralization of many public services (Popkewitz, 1991). The policy implications of this philosophy were a movement towards competition between schools and a rise in the importance of measurable educational measures (Biesta, 2003; Daun, 2003; Lundahl, 2002).

Even after the sweeping reforms of the 1990’s in Sweden, which created a unique decentralized and market driven education system, the importance of a democratic system has been upheld. Yet, the view of democracy has progressively shifted since from a collective concept to an individualized one (Elmersjö, 2020). Followingly, the perceived role of the school has also changed along with the notion of democracy. As educational reforms brought decentralization and the individualism of school choice, the role of the school changed to be one where the individual could receive the practical skills for achieving economic stability. This was seen to be a more effective way of implementing democratic ideals.

Today, educational opportunity remains at the centre of the Swedish educative mission, yet in a different form. Equal participation from a collective perspective has been replaced by the individual student’s right for choice and personal academic preferences (Blossing and Söderström, 2014). When considering democratic values such as citizenship, schools have traditionally used the social science school subject. In Swedish schools, social science content over the previous 50 years demonstrates a shift from a collectivist to individualistic approach in the role of the school in producing citizens (Elmersjö, 2020). The introduction of programming into the Swedish curriculum represents another interpretation of preparedness for the future.

A characteristic of the digitalization reforms in Swedish schools have been framed as having a direct contribution to democratic values; that all pupils have the right to digital literacy regardless of their background, ethnicity and social class (Jedeskog, 2005). Despite those early aspirations and promises, previous research suggests that there is little evidence that the digitalization of schools democratizes education (Selwyn, 2016; Selwyn and Facer, 2013). Instead, the use of technology in schools has been connected to rising inequalities in education due to the digital divides based on students’ socio-economic status and unequal access to resources (Puckett and Rafalow, 2022; Ragnedda and Muschert, 2013); divides that only increased that occurred in response to the rapid digitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic (van de Werfhorst et al., 2022). By demonstrating how the concept of democracy has been used in a number of mass-media articles, we explore how the concept – even though crucial to the production and promotion of the programming agenda – lacks a defined meaning.

Floating signifiers

In this article, Laclau and Mouffe’s (2014) discourse theory is employed for examining how the concept of democracy is being used as a legitimizing force for educational changes. For the purpose of this study, we mainly draw on the concepts of ‘nodal points’ and ‘floating signifiers’.

Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory is grounded in post-structuralism, for which language is understood as less of a structure and more of a social process where structures of meaning are being challenged, negotiated, and fixed depending on the social context. Various signs are being re-configured in new relations where they acquire new meanings. Thus, language is both a social phenomenon and an ongoing struggle; structures of meaning are being challenged and fixed constantly. As Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) argue, meaning can never be ultimately fixed resulting in constant social struggles about the definitions for society.

Discourse is formed by the temporary fixation of meaning around certain ‘nodal points’ (Laclau and Mouffe, 2014). A nodal point is understood as a central sign around which other signs are organized. The meaning of the other signs is being shaped by their relationship to the nodal point. However, these nodal points are empty of meaning in isolation; they do not have a fixed meaning until assigned to a specific context. These unassigned-meaning nodal points are referred to as ‘floating signifiers’. The conceptualization of floating signifiers provides an important resource for studying and understanding the construction and fixation of meaning (Farkas and Schou, 2018). Floating signifiers are elements which ideologically are not securely fixed in particular discourses and can, thus, be constructed in multiple ways (Laclau, 2005, 2006; 2014a). As such, the meaning of floating signifiers can only be fully realized when connected to different contexts. Laclau (2014b) draws a distinction between ‘empty’ and ‘floating’ signifiers. Even though the notions of floating and empty signifiers often overlap, ‘the floating signifiers are the expression of the ambiguity inherent to all frontiers and of the impossibility of the latter acquiring any ultimate stability’ (Laclau, 2014a: 160). In other words, a floating signifier is characterized by an overflowing of meaning, whereas an empty signifier would be a signifier without an assigned meaning.

The very concept of floating signifiers refers to the impossibility of framing and defining words which occupy central positions and whose function is vital to defining other concepts or, in this case, in legitimizing political agendas. According to Laclau’s conceptualization, floating signifiers are used as a part of a struggle to impose certain viewpoints onto the world – a struggle for hegemony. In the words of Laclau (2005), ‘Discourse is the primary terrain of constructing objectivity (p. 68)’.

The concept of democracy is often used as an example of a floating signifier (Howarth, 2014; Jacobs, 2018; Moraes, 2014). As Howarth (2014) argues, democracy as a concept is open to interpretation and articulation within different contexts; for instance, it is understood differently within liberal, radical, anti-fascist and conservative anti-communist discourses. In other words, what democracy as a concept signifies is not permanent or static; it evolves and is being redefined by each society and era. However, as Jacobs (2018) argues, even though the term of democracy is hard to define by itself, it plays a vital role ‘in determining the social meaning of elections, parliament, governments, liberalism, sovereignty, and so on in liberal-democratic discourse’ (p. 304). In recent years, as the Swedish system has become increasingly more marketized and private actors have increasingly come to govern educational policy (Lundahl, 2002). When it comes to the introduction of programming in the Swedish curriculum, previous research has shown that it was a top–down agenda motivated by private interests (Raptopoulou, 2021). Within this contemporary context, the concept of democracy has been re-thought and re-structured within the framing of the competitive market and individualism.

Methodology

In this paper, we seek to examine and nuance how various public discourses simultaneously utilize the ‘democracy’ floating signifier as part of political legitimation of educational changes. The data collection spans the period from 2017 to 2020, incorporating previously published materials. Text materials authored between 2013 and 2017, predominantly from the year 2015, were included. The choice of 2013 marks the initiation of the public discourse advocating for the incorporation of programming into the Swedish school system. Subsequently, from 2015 onward, discussions surrounding the implementation of programming in the Swedish curriculum gained significant prominence (Raptopoulou, 2021). The search and selection of text material was conducted in two different stages. Initially, extensive internet searches were conducted using the search terms democracy and programming (demokrati och programmering) in the fields of title and main text. As democracy was taken as a floating signifier, the search was limited to text material mentioning the term democracy while discussing the inclusion of programming in Swedish schools.

The second stage of selection was based on criteria for the exclusion and inclusion of text material. Drawing inspiration from Sant’s (2019) methodology, the selection of articles was based on four criteria: type of publication, content, focus, and accessibility. Initially, based on the type of publication criterion, only texts published in Swedish newspapers and education-directed websites were selected. Secondly, in terms of content, texts that were discussing the teaching of programming in Swedish schools were preferred. The focus criterion limited our sample to texts that were drawing a connection between programming and democracy. That was an important addition, since a prevalent use of terms related to the term ‘democracy’ in the promotion of programming in the Swedish curriculum has been identified (Raptopoulou, 2021). Lastly, only texts accessible to the general public via web searches were included. After applying the aforementioned criteria, seven articles remained. The authors of these articles are either journalists covering education issues or politicians themselves. It is important to state here that all sources are Swedish, since the public discourse under investigation is all located within a Swedish political context. These selected articles were then used for examining how the concept of democracy is being used as a legitimizing force for the introduction of programming in the Swedish curriculum.

The final selection resulted in seven articles from six different newspapers, magazines, and websites, as presented below. ‘Ny Teknik’ is a weekly magazine that presents current trends in technology. Its relevance lies in providing an understanding of the technological landscape, forming a basis for arguments supporting programming in education. ‘Aftonbladet’ is one of the largest daily newspapers in the Nordic countries and has a large outreach. Additionally, the specific article was authored by the then Minister for Education and Minister for Enterprise. ‘Pedagog Stockholm’ is a website under the auspices of the municipality of Stockholm, providing news and sources to those working as educators in the city. One of the texts, specifically, features an interview with the Commissioner of Schools in Stockholm and the Director of Education in Stockholm, discussing their support for the implementation of programming in Swedish schools. ‘Lärarnas tidning’ and ‘Skolvärlden’ were both monthly magazines of the two Teachers’ National Unions that, since 2022/2023, merged and were replaced by the new trade union magazine ‘Vi Lärare’. Both of those magazines had significant outreach to teachers all over Sweden. They are considered relevant for direct insights into teachers’ views and concerns, shaping public discourse. Lastly, ‘Forskning.se’ is a website operated by the Swedish Research Council in collaboration with several other research funding bodies and the country’s higher education institutions. Its relevance lies in providing a strong foundation for building persuasive arguments based on the latest scientific understanding of the benefits of programming education. Together, these sources collectively form a comprehensive foundation for advocating the integration of programming in Swedish schools, encompassing technological trends, public opinions, localized educator insights, and research.

The selected text material was qualitatively analysed aligned with Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002; Laclau and Mouffe, 2014). The initial coding was conducted through the use of NVivo 11. During this stage, all content that paired democracy and programming was highlighted. Within these preliminary results, several sub-codes emerged based on the different conceptualizations of democracy. Priority was given to the ones with persistent, discursive patterns. The major conceptualizations of democracy that emerged were: a question of democracy, a means to active participation, a means to equality and the battle for legitimation. The following section explores the findings of this analysis in more depth.

A significant detail is that a number of the selected texts under investigation can no longer be retrieved online. Considering the potential temporality of online sources and their role in public discourse is not so easily traced and recreated highlights another dimension of importance. Digital sources are not permanent repositories of information or discourses (Barone et al., 2015) and thus when material is taken down, the particular influences that they have on policy can be lost. For this reason, this study aims to examine these digital artifacts.

Programming for democracy

In this section, the three conceptualizations of democracy in relation to programming are analysed, namely programming as: a question of democracy; a means to active participation; and a means to equality. For each conceptualization, the different articulations and argumentation produced of programming in relation to democracy are going to be presented and discussed. Finally, in the battle for legitimation, the conceptualizations of democracy are examined collectively.

A question of democracy

In all of the texts, the use of the term ‘democracy’ made a connection between the implementation of programming in Swedish schools with having democratic value for society. More specifically, six of the seven texts explicitly characterized programming as a democratic question, having democratic dimensions or being a democratic right. Some of the headlines of those texts were:

Programming as a democratic right (Lannvik Duregård, 2015)

To study programming is important for democracy (Nylander, 2015)

Programming for girls is a question of democracy (Hedren, 2015)

The use of the term had similarities across the articles, which each celebrated the benefits of introducing programming for democracy. However, the use of the term was often imprecise and pointed to different ends. For instance, in Hedren (2015) programming was argued to be a question of democracy because it may potentially give the opportunity for more girls to participate in a male dominated field, which is presented as an inherently democratic curriculum reform. In Fridolin and Damberg (2016) and Lindberg (2017), programming was argued to be a question of democracy because by learning it, one will be able to understand how the digital society works, thus creating the conditions for being an active participant in society. In the following quotations, emotional arguments regarding children are made, giving an additional interpretation:

That all children acquire technical and digital skills in life is fundamentally a matter of democracy (Fridolin and Damberg, 2016)

Regardless of what future dreams our children have and regardless of whether they choose to become music producers, construction engineers, preschool teachers or industrial workers, their professional lives will be lined with ones and zeros. The government is now working purposefully for the school to close digital divides (Fridolin and Damberg, 2016)

All that we do, we do for the benefit of children (Lannvik Duregård, 2015)

While all the articles argued that the inclusion of programming in the curriculum is a matter of democracy, there is a different conceptualization of what this means, from strengthening students’ will to understand the effects of a digitized world and the acquisition of digital competencies to addressing societal inequalities and imbalances. Additionally, in seeking for legitimacy, some texts place the acquisition of programming skills themselves as high as a democratic right (see Hedren, 2015; Lannvik Duregård, 2015). Each of the uses of ‘democracy’ lacked a precise meaning or differed from the other articles.

A means to active participation

In each of the selected articles, the concept of active participation in an increasingly digital world is argued to be an element of democratic opportunity, enabled by the addition of programming in schools. Practical knowledge of how to code and the potential of understanding how machines work are framed as tools for being an active and informed citizen that can understand how the world works. Thus, apart from the use of related words, the floating signifier of democracy is framed through words related to participation, such as: good citizens, informed citizens, active participants, independent decision-making, understanding of how the world works, and participation.

Knowledge of programming is a prerequisite for being an active participant (Alpman, 2013)

Not teaching programming means that we are setting the stage for a society where some can participate in development and others are excluded (Nylander, 2015)

A large part of our society is driven forward by software. It is incredibly important to learn about this. One of the best ways to democratize these kinds of skills is to practice them already in school (Wallin, 2017)

We are in a digital leap, where perhaps everything that can be digitized will be digitized. So, it is about strengthening students’ desire to understand how this affects them (Lindberg, 2017)

In these examples, programming is framed as necessary to educating the students on how to become citizens of tomorrow. It is argued that by learning programming in schools, the students will be informed and active citizens in an awaited technologically advanced reality. However, these arguments have multiple ascriptions of meaning from the floating signifier of ‘democracy’. The authors make a logical jump, attributing practical skills of coding to a future of being an active citizen.

A means to equality

Programming, as presented in these texts, is also constructed as leading to a more equitable society. Within the conceptualization of programming as a means to equality, we have the use of terms such as a school for all and equal access. In this group, programming is expected to bridge the gaps between genders and societal classes; it will help girls, boys, and children from lower socio-economic status to learn to code and, thus, be able to claim high-status programmer positions; it will contribute in creating a school for all with equal access to digital resources.

Girls interested in programming is a democratic issue. IT is the basis of much in our society and when women do not choose technical professions and learn to program, it becomes a democratic inequality (Hedren, 2015)

Without an understanding of what makes the internet, telephones and banking services work, there is no opportunity to influence society (Nylander, 2015)

The recognition that we live in an unjust society is leveraged to argue that inequalities such as the gender gap can be addressed with knowledge of programming. However, this argumentation is uncritical of programmers’ future role and status in society, assuming that those who have these skills, defined in an abstract way, will manage to climb up the societal ladder or bridge the gender gaps.

The battle for legitimation

The concept of democracy occupies a central position in arguing in favour of the programming agenda in the Swedish schools, in connection to various concepts and framings. Democracy as a floating signifier gets assigned various meanings within the discursive production of the programming agenda. Programming is being framed as a question of democracy under various understanding of what this may mean, while it is also being framed as a means to active participation and a means to equality. In this struggle for meaning, ‘democracy’ becomes synonymous with good citizens, active participation, equality, independent decision making, and understanding how the world works. The use of these terms construes the discourse of a democratic society in which each of those concepts/components are not limited within their own particularity or meaning but are functioning as alternative names for ‘democracy’. Thus, democracy as a floating signifier is being re-configured in new relations where it acquires new meanings depending on the context. In other words, democracy becomes the centre of a hegemonic struggle between the different discourses for the realisation of its meaning and function in connection to programming. Much like in previous research (Howarth, 2014; Sant, 2019), the use of democracy for the promotion of the programming agenda in Swedish schools has a contested meaning.

From a poststructuralist perspective, language is the product of social processes and meaning is fixed depending on the social context (Peters and Burbules, 2004). In the process of arguing for the addition of programming in the Swedish compulsory curriculum, democracy as a floating signifier is linked to associated terms, such as equality and active participation, in an effort to assign meaning to it, as well as to ground the new addition to the curriculum in the Swedish ideal of education for democracy. These associated terms succeed in materialising the floating signifier of democracy within the context of programming.

Another important point to be made here is the impossibility for democracy as a floating signifier to acquire any stability or fixed meaning within the discursive production of the programming agenda. The arguments for why programming will contribute to a democratic society are largely based on ambiguity and a struggle for definition. The various standpoints on how programming is a matter of democracy seem to ignore the various subjectivities and diverse realities of the Swedish school system – or any school system. For instance, there is lack of concrete arguments and examples of how programming will actually contribute to democracy. Instead, it the floating signifier of democracy along with synonymous terms appear to be used to project aspirations and expectations of what programming could potentially do. In this case, among the aspirations are the bridging of inequality gaps in schools, the bridging of societal gender gaps and the teaching of students on how to become informed and active citizens. Yet, there is seemingly no concrete proof that focussing on the practical skills of programming will teach students how to process the political and social information needed for understanding how the world works. The notion that programming will contribute to a democratic society is taken as a given, while the addition of programming in schools is being framed as a technical issue on ‘how to get there’. Regardless, in the media articles, it is considered self-explanatory that programming is going to lead to an equal society with informed citizens and active participation and the way to achieve this would be by implementing programming in schools. Given that meaning is constantly changing in the ongoing struggle for stability, hegemonizing forces managed to re-configure the relation between programming and democracy and fix its meaning to a curriculum change that will contribute to the strengthening of societal democratic values. The floating signifier of democracy, ambiguous by itself and fully realized when connected to other contexts, played a vital role in creating socially acceptable arguments that would lead to a social consensus regarding programming. In this process, programming becomes elevated from a practical skill and a new curriculum addition to, quoting the title from one of the media texts, ‘Our Promise to the Children’ (Fridolin and Damberg, 2016).

The discourse that framed the curriculum change of programming led to the view that the addition of programming is not only democratic but also inevitable and beneficial. Through the ambiguity and contested meaning of the floating signifier of democracy, a public rhetoric was construed, which contributed to creating a social consensus in the acceptance of the curriculum change regarding programming. The texts are communicating a technology-driven future, where the citizens are helpless and unable to participate in the society without digital skills in general and knowledge of programming more specifically. In this scenario, the lack of programming raises potential dangers for democracy. Framed in such a way, the addition of programming in schools will lead to a better future – even though, without the solid underpinnings of how such a thing can be achieved. We are striving towards a democratic society and therefore whatever change leads to strengthening our democratic groups is not only acceptable but even needed. This is a rhetoric hard to argue against, since the express of dissatisfaction or opposition to that generally accepted view is paired with the prospect of possibly being deemed undemocratic.

Discussion

Democracy acting as a floating signifier has been central to the discursive production of the pedagogical debate on programming in Sweden. With its different conceptualisations, democracy functioned as a floating signifier between different political arguments and construed an image of how the policy change of programming ought to be perceived. Our main argument is that the floating signifier of democracy, with its ambiguity and its various understandings, was used to legitimize the addition of programming in the Swedish curriculum. Through the different meanings assigned to democracy in connection to programming, programming was construed as a promise to overcome challenges of the contemporary Swedish education system, such as inequality gaps and preparedness of the students for the future. In this public discourse, programming is addressed as an issue in education by appeals to various conceptions of democracy. Yet, what is important to keep in mind here is that the notion of democracy is politically contested and contextually complex, which makes it hard to utilize with transparency in mind – even though, it is often used to signify transparency and political intentions. This raises questions on the degree of transparency and intention in the education policy processes related to programming.

The floating signifier of democracy contributed to the construction of a public discourse that elevated programming as a social necessity, excluding views which argue that programming is merely a practical skill that might have little relevance in the students’ future (Schleicher, 2019). Furthermore, the suitability of emphasizing programming content in the national curriculum relies partly on the viability of these types of the jobs in the future. Yet, there are already discussions emerging that argue that the modern workplace will soon undergo substantial changes (OECD, 2019). Many digital skills, such as programming, are particularly vulnerable and may soon become obsolete. It is difficult to predict the future but recent advancements in artificial intelligence technology have the potential for disruption. These disruptions risk entire professions quickly becoming obsolete so the content that is included in national curriculum needs careful consideration.

Regardless of the various meanings assigned to democracy in connection to programming, the overarching discourse construed in all the texts are that of programming being an educational change that will promote democracy. The hegemony of this public discourse – that of the democratic function of programming – is not challenged. The floating signifier of democracy, assigned many meanings in connection to programming, appears to have won the struggle for hegemony by neutralizing the role economic incentives played in establishing programming in school curricula. Yet, there are several indications that programming had a different role other than promoting democracy – that of appealing to private interests and the lack of programmers within the private sector. Previous research has demonstrated that the addition of programming in schools has been predominantly an economic concern rather than a democratic one, as it is closely tied to economic incentives and interests (Raptopoulou, 2021; Williamson, 2015; Williamson et al., 2018). This suggests that the intended focus of programming in addressing needs is more aligned with the private sector than with the enhancement of democracy. The findings from prior research, coupled with the insights presented in this article, raise questions about the fundamental nature of public education. These enquiries align with and echo the concept of the ‘outer erosion’ of public education resulting from marketization, privatization, and commercialization, as discussed by Biesta et al. (2022). Despite the core mission of the Swedish education system asserting that democracy guides educational practices (Norberg, 2001), there is a lack of evidence demonstrating how programming contributes to the complex pursuit of democracy. This raises concerns about the illusion of purpose created by vague assumptions surrounding the representation of democracy in educational texts.

The discursive construction of programming for democracy resembles previous digitalization campaigns and their connection to democratic values. The connection between digitalization reforms in education and democracy is not new. However, in this case, the floating signifier of democracy is used to legitimize the importance of programming; it becomes a way for justifying it by minimizing the economic imperatives and incentives related to it. What we are witnessing is the re-hegemonization of the concept of democracy for the legitimization and promotion of the necessity of programming in compulsory schooling. While there is undoubtedly some truth in the connection between programming and democracy in terms of widening the participation of and knowledge about the digitalization of our society, it nonetheless fails to capture the proper ways in which programming as a teaching subject is linked to democracy and how those assumptions can come into fruition.

Given its narrow scope, this study is exploratory in nature but highlights a significant concern. The introduction of programming into the Swedish education system has lacked substantial formal debate. Moreover, the existing discourse often revolves around the assertion that programming is inherently democratic. However, the purported promotion of democratic values driving these reforms remains undefined and subject to varying interpretations. This ambiguity not only hampers the definition of curricula but also obscures the stakeholders influencing reforms. A truly democratic reform should be transparent and comprehensible to the affected society, especially when democracy is purportedly fundamental to its implementation.

As many countries worldwide are either contemplating or have implemented changes to their educational systems, such as the inclusion of programming or coding, the examination of how democracy functions as a legitimizing force in one context holds valuable insights for nations undergoing similar reforms. Understanding how democracy is strategically employed in education policy can transcend borders, offering valuable insights for transparent and inclusive policy-making processes across diverse cultural and political contexts. In an era of increasing digitization, where societies grapple with the evolving landscape of education, the findings of this study contribute meaningfully to the ongoing global discourse on the role of democracy in shaping educational policies.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Anthemis Raptopoulou

Brendan Munhall

Anthemis Raptopoulou is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Education, Södertörn University. Her research interest is within the area of education policy, politics, and education governance with a particular focus on emerging policy networks, discourses, and private sector involvement. Her latest study was on the recent addition of programming into the Swedish compulsory curriculum, where she explored how external actors and private interests both influenced and participated in the policy-making processes.

Brendan Munhall is a PhD student at the Department of Education, Stockholm University. Brendan’s research interests relate to the school-choice process within the decentralized Swedish education system, which is characterized by unique market-based features. His doctoral study involves interviewing recently migrated students about their upper-secondary school choice and focuses on their strategies, experiences and perspectives in the competitive quasi-market school system.

References

Alpman

(2013) Programmering På Schemat Från Fem År. Ny Teknik. [Programming in the Program From Five Year’s Old]. Stockholm, Sweden: Skolporten. Retrieved 12 April 2019, from: https://www.nyteknik.se/digitalisering/programmering-pa-schemat-fran-fem-ar-6402204

Apple

(1993) The politics of official knowledge: does a national curriculum make sense? Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 95(2): 222–241.

Apple

(2011) Democratic education in neoliberal and neoconservative times. International Studies in Sociology of Education 21(1): 21–31. DOI: 10.1080/09620214.2011.543850.

Barone

Zeitlyn

Mayer-Schönberger

(2015) Learning from failure: the case of the disappearing web site. First Monday 20(5). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v20i5.5852.

Biesta

(2003) Demokrati - ett problem för utbildning eller ett utbildningsproblem? Utbildning & Demokrati – Tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitk 12(1): 59–80. DOI: 10.48059/uod.v12i1.741.

Biesta

(2015) Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future. London, UK: Routledge.

Biesta

Heugh

Cervinkova

, et al. (2022) Philosophy of education in a new key: publicness, social justice, and education; a South-North conversation. Educational Philosophy and Theory 54(8): 1216–1233. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2021.1929172.

Blossing

Söderström

(2014) A school for every child in Sweden. In: Blossing

Imsen

Moos

(eds) The Nordic Education Model. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 17–34. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7125-3.

Carr

(1998) The curriculum in and for a democratic society. Curriculum Studies 6(3): 323–340. DOI: 10.1080/14681369800200044.

10.

Daun

Holger

(2003) Market forces and decentralization in Sweden: impetus for school development or threat to comprehensiveness and equity. In: Plank

David

Sykes

Gary

(eds). Choosing Choice: School Choice in International Perspective. New York: Teachers College Press, 92–111.

11.

Dewey

(1966) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. 1st edition. Mumbai, India: Free Press.

12.

Elmersjö

HÅ

(2020) An individualistic turn: citizenship in Swedish history and social studies syllabi, 1970–2017. History of Education 50: 220–239. DOI: 10.1080/0046760X.2020.1826052.

13.

Englund

(1994a) Communities, markets and traditional values: Swedish schooling in the 1990s. Curriculum Studies 2(1): 5–29. DOI: 10.1080/0965975940020101.

14.

Englund

(1994b) Education as a citizenship right-a concept in transition: Sweden related to other western democracies and political philosophy 1. Journal of Curriculum Studies 26(4): 383–399. DOI: 10.1080/0022027940260403.

15.

Englund

(2000) Rethinking democracy and education: towards an education of deliberative citizens. Journal of Curriculum Studies 32(2): 305–313. DOI: 10.1080/002202700182772.

16.

Englund

(2005) The discourse on equivalence in Swedish education policy. Journal of Education Policy 20(1): 39–57. DOI: 10.1080/0268093042000322829.

17.

Farkas

Schou

(2018) Fake news as a floating signifier: hegemony, antagonism and the politics of falsehood. Javnost - The Public 25(3): 298–314. DOI: 10.1080/13183222.2018.1463047.

18.

Fridolin

Damberg

(2016) Vårt Löfte till Barnen – Mer Teknik I Skolan [Our Promise to the Children – More Technology in the School]. Stockholm, Sweden: Aftonbladet. Retrieved 4 February 2020, from: https://www.aftonbladet.se/a/8wjkMW

19.

Goodman

(1989) Education for critical democracy. Journal of Education 171(2): 88–116.

20.

Gutmann

(1993) Democracy & democratic education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 12(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1007/BF01235468.

21.

Gutmann

(1999) Democratic Education. Revised Edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7sdfv

22.

Haug

(1999) Formulation and realization of social justice: the compulsory school for all in Sweden and Norway. European Journal of Special Needs Education 14(3): 231–239. DOI: 10.1080/0885625990140305.

23.

Hedren

(2015) Programmering för flickor är en fråga om demokrati [Programming for Girls is a Question of Democracy]. Stockholm, Sweden: Pedagog Stockholm. Retrieved 27 September 2018 from: https://pedagog.stockholm.se/teknik/dataslojd-for-flickor-ar-en-fraga-om-demokrati/

24.

Howarth

(ed) (2014) Ernesto Laclau: Post-Marxism, Populism and Critique. London, UK: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203762288.

25.

Jacobs

(2018) The dislocated universe of Laclau and Mouffe: an introduction to post-structuralist discourse theory. Critical Review 30(3–4): 294–315. DOI: 10.1080/08913811.2018.1565731.

26.

Jedeskog

(2005) Ch@nging School: Implementation of ICT in Swedish School, Campaigns and Experiences 1984–2004. Uppsala, Sweden: Pedagogiska Institutionen, Uppsala Universitet.

27.

Jørgensen

Phillips

(2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. DOI: 10.4135/9781849208871.

28.

Laclau

(2005) On Populist Reason. London, UK: Verso.

29.

Laclau

(2006) Emancipation(s). London, UK: Verso Books.

30.

Laclau

(2014a) Populism: what’s in a name? (2005). In: Howarth

(ed) Ernesto Laclau: Post-Marxism, Populism and Critique. 1st edition. London, UK: Routledge, 13.

31.

Laclau

(2014b) The Rhetorical Foundations of Society. London, UK: Verso.

32.

Laclau

Mouffe

(2014) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London, UK: Verso.

33.

Lannvik Duregård

(2015) Programmering som en demokratisk rättighet [Programming as a Democratic Right]. Stockholm, Sweden: Lärarnas Tidning. Retrieved 27 September 2018, from: https://lararnastidning.se/programmering-som-en-demokratisk-rattighet/

34.

Lindberg

(2017) Programmering i skolan – här för att stanna [Programming in School – Here to Stay]. Stockholm, Sweden: Pedagog. Retrieved 6 September 2018 from: https://pedagog.stockholm.se/programmering/programmering-i-skolan--har-for-att-stanna/

35.

Lundahl

(2002) Sweden: decentralization, deregulation, quasi-markets - and then what? Journal of Education Policy 17(6): 687–697. DOI: 10.1080/0268093022000032328.

36.

Macpherson

(1975) The Real World of Democracy. 4th edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

37.

Moraes

(2014) Global citizenship as a floating signifier: lessons from UK universities. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning 6(2): 27–42.

38.

Norberg

(2001) The constitutive values of Swedish schooling: a challenge to the inner life of schools. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 9(3): 371–386. DOI: 10.1080/14681360100200125.

39.

Nylander

(2015) Plugga programmering viktigt för demokratin [Study Programming Important for Democracy]. Stockholm, Sweden: Forskning.se. Retrieved 10 November 2020, from: https://www.forskning.se/2015/08/31/plugga-programmering-viktigt-for-demokratin-2/

40.

OECD (2019) OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Concept Note. Paris, France: OECD. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/skills/Skills_for_2030_concept_note.pdf (accessed 13 February 2023).

41.

Page

(2006) Curriculum matters. In: Hansen

(ed) John Dewey and Our Educational Prospect. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 39–66.

42.

Peters

Burbules

(2004) Poststructuralism and Educational Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

43.

Popkewitz

(1991) A Political Sociology of Educational Reform. 1st edition. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

44.

Puckett

Rafalow

(2022) From “impact” to “negotiation”: educational technologies and inequality. In: Rohlinger

Sobieraj

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Digital Media Sociology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197510636.013.8.

45.

Ragnedda

Muschert

(eds) (2013) The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social Inequality in International Perspective. London, UK: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203069769.

46.

Raptopoulou

(2021) Politics of Contemporary Education Policy: The Case of Programming in the Swedish Curriculum. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1582885/FULLTEXT01.pdf

47.

Regeringen (2015) Uppdrag Att Föreslå Nationella It-Strategier För Skolväsendet. [Mission to Propose National IT Strategies for the School System]U2015/04666/S. Stockholm, Sweden: Regeringen. https://www.regeringen.se/regeringsuppdrag/2015/09/uppdrag-att-foresla-nationella-it-strategier-for-skolvasendet/

48.

Regeringen (2017) Nationell Digitaliseringsstrategi För Skolväsendet. [National Digitalization Strategy for the School System]. Stockholm, Sweden: Regeringen. https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/72ff9b9845854d6c8689017999228e53/nationell-digitaliseringsstrategi-for-skolvasendet.pdf

49.

Riddle

Bright

McKay

(2022) Education, policy and democracy: contemporary challenges and possibilities. Journal of Educational Administration & History 54(3): 241–244. DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2022.2083678.

50.

Sant

(2019) Democratic education: a theoretical review (2006–2017). Review of Educational Research 89(5): 655–696. DOI: 10.3102/0034654319862493.

51.

Saraisky

(2016) Analyzing public discourse: using media content analysis to understand the policy process. Current Issues in Comparative Education 18(1): 26–41.

52.

Schleicher

(2019) Should schools teach coding? Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-schools-teach-coding-andreas-schleicher/ (accessed 18 May 2021).

53.

Selwyn

(2016) Is Technology Good for Education? Chichester, UK: Wiley.

54.

Selwyn

Facer

(2013) The Politics of Education and Technology. Conflicts, Controversies, and Connections. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

55.

Skolverket (2018) Digitalisering I Skolan – Möjligheter Och Utmaningar. [Digitalization in the school – opportunities and challenges]. Stockholm, Sweden: Skolverket. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=3971.

56.

Tilly

(2007) Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

57.

van de Werfhorst

Kessenich

Geven

(2022) The digital divide in online education: inequality in digital readiness of students and schools. Computers and Education Open 3: 100100. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100100.

58.

Wahlström

(2020) Democracy and curriculum—the task still before us. European Educational Research Journal 19(4): 351–363. DOI: 10.1177/1474904119889795.

59.

Wallin

(2017) De Jobbar Bort Rädslan För Programmering [They Work Against the Fear for Programming]. Stockholm, Sweden: Skolvärlden. Retrieved 27 September 2018 from: https://skolvarlden.se/artiklar/de-jobbar-bort-radslan-programmering

60.

Williamson

(2015) Political computational thinking: policy networks, digital governance and ‘learning to code’. Critical Policy Studies 10: 39–58. DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2015.1052003.

61.

Williamson

Rensfeldt

Player-Koro

, et al. (2018) Education recoded: policy mobilities in the international ‘learning to code’ agenda. Journal of Education Policy 34(5): 705–725. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2018.1476735.

Democracy as a floating signifier: The struggle for legitimation of programming in Swedish schools

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Democracy and education

Floating signifiers

Methodology

Programming for democracy

A question of democracy

A means to active participation

A means to equality

The battle for legitimation

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References