top of page
Search
Editorial
Dec 18, 20246 min read

The fine line between education and entrepreneurship: a critical look at EdTech partnerships and academia

Updated: Dec 20, 2024

Proposals to fuse academia and the EdTech industry risk undermining academic independence and rigour.


A recent webinar explored the concept of 'knowledge brokering' and emphasized the urgency of accelerating [EdTech] product development. While the exchange of insights about classroom dynamics, needs, and challenges holds promise for fostering meaningful support, it also highlights more troubling issues. Chief among these are concerns about the commercialization of education and the role of academics advocating for closer collaboration with industry.


Credit image: Wix media

The commercialisation of knowledge: turning research into products

The concept of ‘knowledge brokering’ is entering academic discourse without much critical thought of what this actually means. The webinar, organised between academics and industry representatives, was introduced as a way to connect educational research with EdTech companies.


In theory, it sounds great—researchers provide insights on how children learn, and EdTech companies turn these insights into tools that help teachers. But let’s pause and think about this: When knowledge is treated as something that can be bought and sold, we risk turning education into a commodity. Instead of focusing on real educational needs, companies might end up designing products just to meet market demands (driven by profit motives)—not what is desirable or beneficial to students and teachers.


One idea proposed in this webinar was to 'integrate research into entrepreneurial ventures.' While there was advocacy for evidence-based development, the tension between research and the drive for quick commercial success is alarming. Investors in the EdTech space want fast returns, but research is slow. So, what do you get when that tension boils over? Products rushed to market with inadequate research backing, which could have negative consequences for real students and teachers. The need for speed and profit often compromises thorough validation of any of the products developed, and ethical considerations as to why integrate/sell them to schools!


The problem with interdisciplinary collaboration

Another emphasis at the webinar was on creating interdisciplinary networks to design education products that are 'grounded in neuroscience and psychology.' Fine, however, what is notably absent from this proposal is the lack of practical teaching experience and educational best practices. Yes, neuroscience and psychology are important, but they aren’t the only pieces that matter in the classroom. Why is there so little attention to the social relationship between teacher and child and the role of the teacher to begin with? What about child development or teaching strategies that have been tested over decades? By focusing on theoretical models and scientific studies, we risk creating products that may look good on paper—or device—but fail in real classrooms. Then the justification for buying them takes schools down a vicious cycle.


Moreover, the webinar's call for ‘co-creation’ of products is more about business strategy than true educational innovation. When companies involve teachers and stakeholders early in the design process, it cuts down on research and development costs. In other words, teachers become free consultants for EdTech companies. The real question is: how much input do teachers and schools truly have in shaping these products beyond what is convenient for the companies? The fine line between collaboration and exploitation becomes blurry.


Finland’s ‘testbed’ approach: Key points that are omitted

Finland’s testbed model has been used to show how schools are used as real-world labs for testing educational products. This sounds great in theory—after all, Finland is often hailed as having one of the best education systems in the world. But this is misleading. By calling Finland a ‘testbed,’ we’re essentially saying that students and teachers are guinea pigs for new products that may or may not work. While the Finnish system offers a more controlled environment for product testing, the broader implication is troubling: education is becoming a playground for tech companies looking to scale their products without fully understanding or respecting the needs of diverse learners or indeed the desirability of any of these products for teaching and learning.


Credit image: Wix media

Crucial moment that is omitted when pointing at Finland as a successful model is this: Becoming a teacher in Finland is a highly competitive and rigorous process. It reflects the profession’s esteemed status within Finnish society. Prospective teachers must obtain a master’s degree in education or in their specific subject area. Entering teacher education programs is notoriously challenging. For instance, in 2016, the acceptance rate for the University of Helsinki’s teacher education program was 6.8%, making it more selective than the university’s law (8.3%) and medical (7.3%) programs. This Hechinger Report suggests that one is expected to see teacher shortages in Finland with strict entry. However, there isn’t.

'A major reason for this is that teaching profession is seen as desirable.’

According to a World Bank report:

‘Only one fifth of all applicants to primary teacher education programs in Finnish universities are admitted.’

This selection ensures that only the most dedicated and capable candidates pursue teaching careers! Teachers are also well paid, once they enter into the workforce but before that, they have been trained on: Educational sciences and pedagogy, subject-specific studies, and guided teaching practice. There is also a great amount of trust placed in them.

‘Once Finnish teachers are hired and in classrooms, they are given a lot of responsibility. With such a high-quality human capital, school management can be performed differently. The country does not have classroom inspectors or supervisors. In its place, principals act as pedagogical leaders and provide teachers with trust and steering, instead of control. Teachers are encouraged to work in close collaboration with their peers, constantly mentoring and tutoring each other. The aim of this ongoing initiative is to provide the support needed to make sure that the best pedagogical practices are implemented in every classroom.’

Alas, none of this background is mentioned in these academia-industry infusions.


Fusing academic researchers with entrepreneurs: A BIG ethical dilemma!

Fusing academic researchers with entrepreneurs as this webinar are promoting, raises ethical questions. Yes, researchers should find ways to bring their findings to market, but there’s a significant risk that academic rigour will take a backseat to commercialisation. Universities have long been places of knowledge creation and exploration, but turning academic work into a business venture could result in the watering down of educational standards in favour of products that appeal to the mass market. We have observed this already with the digital surveillance and the standardised testing in education—soon coming standardised and AI-led assessments, too.


The risk of commercialising education through academic-led narratives

At the heart of this conversation is a concerning trend: the commercial interests of digital commercial providers often take precedence over the actual needs of educators and students. While research-driven innovation and interdisciplinary collaboration are important, we must ask ourselves whether these efforts are truly aimed at improving education or simply at creating profitable products. Why are these same academics, for instance, not focused on identifying how these products are developed and what lawful, safety, ethical standards they meet? And if not, why not? This is another way of asking where do academic researchers' interests lie?


The increasing commercialisation of education raises ethical and legal concerns about data use, teacher autonomy, and student privacy. The EdTech space must tread carefully to ensure that innovation in education is driven by a genuine desire to improve learning, not just to cash in on the next big thing and neither should academic research end up evolving in a direction that prioritises industry's needs.


A balanced take on the debate about whether academics should collaborate-bridge—with digital companies especially when it comes to the wellbeing of children is a paper by Livingstone, Orben and Odgers. In a nutshell the authors look at the promises and pitfalls of academic collaboration with social media and gaming companies specifically and advocate for multidisciplinary deliberation of clear guidelines for ethical and transparent partnerships. But the crucial takeaway is the preservation of independent research.



References

4 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page