This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]
On: 10 February 2015, At: 02:25
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
British Journal of Sociology of
Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbse20
Biopower and school surveillance
technologies 2.0
a
Andrew Hope
a
School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide,
Australia
Published online: 05 Feb 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Andrew Hope (2015): Biopower and school surveillance technologies 2.0, British
Journal of Sociology of Education, DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2014.1001060
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.1001060
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.1001060
Biopower and school surveillance technologies 2.0
Andrew Hope*
School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
(Received 4 March 2014; final version received 4 December 2014)
In recent years the proliferation, speed and reach of school-based surveillance devices has undergone what could be labelled as a revolution.
Drawing upon Foucault’s concept of biopower to explore the disciplining of bodies and the biopolitical management of populations, this paper
examines ‘new’ school surveillance technologies enabling biometric
measurement, electronic detection, substance screening, video observation and data monitoring. Klein’s notion of surveillance 2.0 is utilised to
further examine emerging features of school monitoring practices,
including the impact of ‘data doubles’, playful student resistance and
the commodification of surveillance. It is concluded that invasive school
surveillance practices are becoming normalised, that politically motivated, data-driven simulations could increasingly be used to support
education interventions and that a function creep is occurring as recreational devices become embroiled in institutional surveillance practices.
Keywords: biopower; discipline; biopolitics; body; data; resistance
Introduction
It is commonly asserted that ‘surveillance societies’ have emerged in many
economically developed nation-states (Lyon 1994). In such places, everyday
life is suffused with systematic monitoring practices and surveillance has
become a key mode of social organisation. Yet Lyon (2007, 25) argues that
the notion of ‘surveillance societies’ is potentially misleading in so far as it
suggests a homogeneous situation of being constantly monitored when the
social reality is far more varied, complex and nuanced. Consequently he
suggests that the focus should be on specific sites, which would allow the
separation of surveillance ‘strands’ into different areas of social life, such as
education, work and leisure. Heeding such advice, this paper seeks to map
‘new’ school surveillance technologies, posing questions about the extent of
provision, their impact and the manner in which social control is exercised.
Driven by the availability of a dizzying array of new, ‘affordable’
technologies, the scope and reach of school surveillance has increased
*Email: andrew.hope@adelaide.edu.au
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
2
A. Hope
dramatically in recent years. Whilst it should not be assumed that newly
introduced monitoring devices necessarily result in changed practices,
commentators have nevertheless heralded the emergence of the ‘surveillance
curriculum’ (Monahan 2006; Hope 2010), the ‘surveillance school’ (Taylor
2012), ‘surveillance 2.0’ in educational institutions (Kuehn 2008) and the
‘database school’ (Hope 2013). A striking aspect of ‘new’ school
surveillance technologies is the sheer variety of technologies utilised.
This analysis draws upon Foucault’s (1978) work on biopower to
explore how various surveillance devices might objectify student bodies
through disciplinary techniques and the biopolitical management of populations. Thus, ‘new’ surveillance technologies enabling biometric measurement, electronic detection, substance screening, video observation and data
monitoring are considered in turn. The second part of this paper utilises
Klein’s (2008) notion of surveillance 2.0 to explore emerging features of
school monitoring technologies, including the increasing importance of statistical surveillance, novel forms of student resistance and the commodification of devices that monitor bodies. Ultimately it is argued that the
normalisation of intrusive surveillance is occurring, with recreational devices
also becoming embroiled in institutional surveillance, whilst more attention
needs to be paid to the impact of school databases.
The lack of empirical research on the social impact of school
surveillance technologies makes it difficult to accurately assess the situation
(Taylor 2012). Indeed, a scarcity of accurate, publicly accessible information
means that it is impossible to reliably relate even the number of certain surveillance devices present in schools. Although this paper draws upon
research where it is available, much of the discussion utilises accounts from
news stories in an attempt to illuminate some of the social–cultural
processes surrounding school surveillance. It is recognised that media stories
have certain weaknesses as sources of information, but nevertheless they
add enriching detail to the narrative that would otherwise be lacking.
Foucault, biopower and surveillance technologies
Schools are institutions of social control that seek to dictate, monitor and
enforce ‘appropriate’ behaviour. Historically, surveillance has played a central role in such processes. Thus in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
school observation was embodied in classroom management strategies, the
keeping of attendance registers, the strict use of timetables, school reports,
punishment and testing to scrutinise performance (Hall 2003). Significantly,
the body is a key focal point for surveillance with schools acting as ‘sites
for training bodies to behave in socially sanctioned ways’ (Cooks and
Warren 2011, 211). As this suggests, individuals do not merely have a
body; rather they actively fashion, manipulate and negotiate the body,
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
British Journal of Sociology of Education
3
engaging in dynamic corporeal construction. Such considerations mark the
body as a site for the exercise and resistance of power.
Drawing upon Foucault’s conceptualisation of biopower, it can be argued
that in late modernity the body has become a target of relentless, minute
and detailed forms of technological surveillance. According to Foucault,
biopower emerged in the late eighteenth century for managing populations;
a ‘set of mechanisms through which the basic biological features of the
human species become the object of a political strategy, of a general strategy of power’ (2007, 1). It enabled modern nation-states to foster ‘numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the
control of populations’ (Foucault 1978, 140). Foucault initially proposed a
simple bipolar model of biopower, drawing on notions of discipline and biopolitics: ‘Where discipline is the technology deployed to make individuals
behave, to be efficient and productive workers, biopolitics is deployed to
manage population; for example to ensure a healthy workforce’ (2004,
242). Thus, one pole of biopower is concerned with disciplinary anatamopolitics of the body, whilst the other is ‘a biopolitics of the population,
focusing on the species body … birth, morbidity, mortality, longevity’
(Rabinow and Rose 2006, 196). Yet as Mills (2013, 85) notes, Foucault
does not rigorously maintain this distinction between biopower and biopolitics, sometimes using the terms interchangeably. Such definitional issues are
exacerbated by Foucault’s all too brief discussion of biopower in his work,
which amounted to a mere six pages in the first volume of The History of
Sexuality (Foucault 1978) and a number of his 1976 lectures at the College
de France. Nevertheless, Mills (2003, 6) suggests that Foucault’s ideas tend
to be used as a way of approaching a subject rather than as a set of rigid
principles. After all, Foucault advised readers to make sense of his work
freely, without slavish adherence to some dominant interpretation. In this
context, a definition of biopower will be adopted that encompasses both discipline and biopolitics. Such an approach addresses Monahan and Torres’s
(2010, 7) criticism that many surveillance scholars are beguiled by
Foucault’s (1977) discussion of discipline as embodied in the panopticon
prison design, but neglect his theoretical insights on biopolitics.
Seeking nuanced social insights into school surveillance, it is important
to avoid simply equating discipline with micro-level practices and biopolitics with macro-level policies. Both the differences and similarities of these
two concepts are more complex. Foucault (1977, 170) notes that ‘[t]he chief
function of disciplinary power is to “train” … Discipline “makes” individuals; it is the specific technique of a power that regards individuals both as
objects and as instruments of its exercise’. Consequently, school surveillance devices attempt to normalise the self-policing of the body, inducing
‘a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic
functioning of power’ (1977, 201). Such arguments underpin much of the
sociological research focusing upon surveillance devices, such as Internet
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
4
A. Hope
software (Hope 2005), CCTV cameras, (Hope 2009; Taylor 2014),
biometric devices (Bryce et al. 2010) and educational databases (Kuehn
2008). Foucault’s (1978) conceptualisation of biopolitics features more
commonly in studies concerned with surveillance of bodies in schools,
exploring issues such as ‘healthy’ food choices (Gibson and Dempsey
2012), the ‘obesity epidemic’ (Wright and Harwood 2008) and sex education (McNeill 2013). Indeed as Rich (2010, 804) notes, school practices
such as the monitoring of food purchases, lunch-box inspection, regular
weighing and pedometer use to measure steps taken reflects ‘a wider
biopolitical culture of social governance via the direct surveillance of young
people’s lives’. It is biopolitical in the sense that such controlling power is
exercised over a population as a whole.
Yet one should be wary of treating disciplinary and biopolitical power as
isolated categories. After all, ‘school is one of those places where the body
and population meet’ (Ball 2013, 54). Furthermore, Foucault (1980, 139)
suggests that the two poles of biopower are ‘linked together by a whole
cluster of relations’, most notably the norm:
[T]here is one element that will circulate between the disciplinary and the regulatory, which will also be applied to the body and population alike, which
will make it possible to control both the disciplinary order of the body and
the aleatory events that occur in the biopolitical multiplicity. The element that
circulates between the two is the norm. The norm is something that can be
applied both to a body one wishes to discipline and a population one wishes
to regularize. (Foucault 2004, 253)
Indeed Foucault (1977, 184) argues that the norm functions as a ‘principle
of coercion in teaching’. Practices such as the examination combine surveillance with normalising judgements. Developing a similar argument, Deacon
(2006) maintains that a kind of normalised ‘moral orthopaedics’ emerged in
schooling, wherein behavioural change was sought not only through teaching methodologies and curriculum content, but also the management of
time, sexuality and the body. Seeking to engender processes of normalisation, ‘[s]chooling taught not only punctuation, but also punctuality, and not
only reading, but also hygiene’ (Deacon 2006, 182–183). Clearly there is a
complex interplay between elements of biopower, surveillance and the body
in schools, which will be further explored as the focus shifts to ‘new’ forms
of monitoring technologies in schools.
Biometrics and identification
Biometric technologies capture, measure and analyse human physical or
behavioural characteristics for the purpose of identification, authentication
and screening. Such surveillance in schools includes Automated Fingerprint
Identification Systems, palm vein scanners, iris scanning devices and facial
recognition software.
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
British Journal of Sociology of Education
5
Many schools utilise fingerprint identification for registration, library book
issue, cashless catering systems and personal lockers. It has been extrapolated
that 40% of UK secondary schools are using biometric technologies, with an
estimated 1.28 million students fingerprinted (Big Brother Watch 2014).
Furthermore, since the mid-2000s some UK schools have enabled students to
automatically debit lunch accounts via cameras using iris recognition software (BBC News 2003) or palm scanners (Scotsman.com 2006). Whilst
facial recognition software is less evident in educational institutions than
other biometric surveillance, 10 UK schools in Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire piloted a system in 2010 called faceREGISTER
that scanned pupil’s faces (MailOnline 2010). The primary reason for
introducing the system appears to be speeding up attendance monitoring
processes, although claims that students cannot sign in for their friends
indicates that it is also intended to combat false registration.
Such biometric measures in schools effectively treat the body as an identity/debit card, enabling the verification of presence and, upon occasion, the
accessing of funds. Although these devices might enforce discipline through
automated registration, they are functional equivalents of controls that operated previously. Yet such surveillance tools are not solely concerned with
conduct control. Rather, they are also intended to facilitate administrative
processes, improving speed and efficiency. Consequently the student body
has become embroiled in technological processes of administrative efficiency, as biometric surveillance systems ‘reduce the body to an identificatory signifier’ (Kruger, Magnet, and Van Loon 2008, 102). Significantly,
technologies such as Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems can be
seen as part of broader biopolitical processes that effectively seek to normalise invasive surveillance procedures so that they become accepted as commonplace practice. Although the UK Protections of Freedoms Act 2012
means that students have a legal right to refuse to have their biometric data
taken, it is noteworthy that they have to essentially ‘opt out’ of the system
rather than confirm that they are willing to ‘opt in’. Thus the normalcy of
intrusive surveillance practices in schools is reinforced. In this context, such
devices are not concerned with constructing ‘ideal’ bodies but compliant,
detectable ones.
Electronic detection devices, concealed carry and tracking
Two groups of electronic detection instruments that have become increasingly prominent in schools in recent years are metal detectors and radiofrequency identification (RFID) devices. Walk-through and handheld metal
detectors have been introduced primarily to detect concealed weapons such
as guns and knives in schools. Gastic (2011) reports that 6% of US state
schools are conducting random or daily metal detector searches of students.
In 2008 the UK government announced plans to install airport-style metal
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
6
A. Hope
detectors at hundreds of school gates to combat the problem of teenage
knife crime (Observer 2008); however, the rarity of armed violence in UK
schools has meant that use of so-called ‘knife arches’ has remained scant
and sporadic. There is little evidence to show that metal detectors curb
violence in schools, with commentators suggesting that changing school
cultural climates would be more effective (Peterson and Skiba 2000).
Furthermore, problems arise as metal in the form of coins or jewellery may
trigger the detector, embarrassing students. It is also argued that the devices
may also ‘bestow an organizational stigma’ (Gastic 2011, 495).
RFID microchips embedded in uniforms, backpacks and identity cards in
Japan, the Philippines, the United States and the United Kingdom enable
parents and schools to track students (Marx and Steeves 2010). In
Melbourne some primary schools students swipe a RFID card at a unit in
the foyer on arrival to record whether they have walked or cycled (Herald
Sun 2014). Automatic emails are then sent notifying parents when their
child has completed the journey. This highlights how surveillance technologies function in interconnected ways. Commercial companies also offer a
‘chaperone service’, which sets up a ‘geofence’ around an area and sends a
message if a child’s mobile phone wanders outside this area (Kuehn 2008).
Taylor (2012, 226) suggests that ‘[a] number of nebulous benefits have been
attributed to RFID in schools, including increasing the speed and accuracy
of registration, heightened security, enabling the visual confirmation of
attendance, and to ease data input for schools’ behaviour monitoring
systems’.
Both metal detectors and RFID devices treat the body as a transporter, a
potential carrier of ‘dangerous’ metallic objects or tracking devices. Whilst
in the first instance the aim is to exclude through detecting and removing
‘undesirable’ metal objects secreted on the body, in the second situation
inclusion of the monitoring device and subsequent reporting of students’
locations is the intent. Both electronic monitoring technologies seek to
expose the exogenous body to scrutiny. In so far as they also seek to construct the body as carrier, an object of information rather than a subject of
communication, there is a clear disciplinary aspect.
Substance screening, fitness and ‘indulgence’
A range of technologies are used in schools to detect ‘undesirable’ substances within the body such as alcohol, drugs and even fat. Some US high
schools use breathalysers to test every student at extracurricular events,
whilst others test randomly or if drinking is suspected (USA Today 2007).
A survey conducted in 1999 found that nearly three-quarters of UK independent boarding schools were using some form of drug test (Parliamentary
Office of Science and Technology 2004). Yet it was not until January 2005
that the first UK state school introduced random drug tests. Noting that
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
British Journal of Sociology of Education
7
‘[r]andom drug testing of school pupils is commonplace within the United
States’, McKeganey (2005, 20) questions the effectiveness of school-based
drug testing, raising concerns about false positive results, the undermining
of trust, stigmatising students, issues of consent and disclosure of prescription medication. Yet it is not just prohibited substances within the body that
are monitored. In California the screening and surveillance of students’
body mass index began in schools in 1999, with Arkansas and other states
following in 2003. If a student’s measurement is not within a norm then
their parents are informed and the suggestion made that they contact their
healthcare provider (Crawford et al. 2011). Whilst school-based public
health surveillance is a not a new development, the measurement of body
mass index in the United States and the National Childhood Obesity Database in the United Kingdom raise issues about the scope and impact of such
data collection, particularly with regard to students’ own body images.
More recently, high-tech sensors have been introduced in schools to
monitor exercise and food intake. Minneapolis high school students use
step-tracking wristbands to ensure that they meet their gym class’s requirement for physical movement of 15,000 moves in a day (Star Tribune 2014).
The data are downloaded as a substitute for the manual online logging of
physical exercise. Other US school districts are also giving students pedometers, with some programmes including children attending kindergarten
(Associated Press 2014). Furthermore, high-tech sensors that assess obesity
risk through measuring food intake and activity are being tested on secondary school students in Sweden and the Netherlands (BBC News 2013).
School surveillance technologies that detect ‘undesirable’ substances
within the body may exert disciplinary force, through seeking to prohibit
the consumption of certain items. They also seek to normalise behaviours
such as sobriety and eating a healthy diet. Similarly, activity measuring
devices encourage self-policing, while referencing a notional construct of
how much exercise students should undertake. In so doing there exists the
potential to generalise to an entire population of students an ‘ideal’ body
type, a simulacra heavily enshrouded in western, conservative values. The
body might become disprivileged as the focus of pleasure, being usurped by
the ‘need’ for discipline and socialised into a broader biopolitical discourse
concerning the ‘healthy’ body. Thus, as Gibson and Dempsey (2013, 4)
note, health interventions are a form of biopower in action: ‘[o]verlapping
moralizing discourses, provides biopedagogies, or techniques that invite the
individual to practice self-discipline of one’s health as a form of good
citizenship’.
Video surveillance and the body in space
Surveillance cameras are commonly used for the purpose of observing an
area and electronically capture audio-visual information. They are often
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
8
A. Hope
connected to recording devices or digital networks and may be watched in
real time. In schools they commonly take the form of CCTV cameras or
webcams.
Big Brother Watch (2012) estimated that there are over 106,000 CCTV
cameras installed in English, Welsh and Scottish secondary schools. According to Taylor (2010, 383), ‘[t]he primary reason to install CCTV in schools
is usually cited as crime prevention and detection’, with other proclaimed
benefits including ‘tackling deviant behaviours such bullying, truancy, vandalism, and smoking on the premises; assisting in the invigilation of exams;
to monitor staff performance; and, to prevent intrusions by strangers’.
Whilst there is anecdotal evidence that some children acknowledge classroom ‘misbehaviour’ when staff threaten to consult recorded images, qualitative research suggests that students generally have a ‘low level of
awareness’ of CCTV in school, with the impact on ‘misbehaviour’ being
limited and at best sporadic (Hope 2009). This echoes the view that in the
long term CCTV fails to deter criminal and deviant behaviour (Gill and
Spriggs 2005).
Webcams have been used to improve security, enable parents to remotely
watch their children in day-care facilities and to monitor lessons while providing instant feedback to teachers via a wireless earpiece in some secondary schools. Although separate web cameras can be installed in classrooms,
many computers and networked devices are manufactured with discreet
webcams fitted. That webcam-enabled laptops and digital tablets may be
taken home could blur institutional/private boundaries. For example, in a
suburban Philadelphian school district, security software installed on a
school laptop computer secretly triggered a webcam inside a student’s
home. The principal then sought to use the resultant images to punish the
student for perceived improper, drug-related behaviour (Huffington Post
2010).
Drone technology application is growing in broader society and these
miniature aircraft equipped with cameras are starting to appear in schools.
One Belgian school released an online video showing how they used such a
device to monitor examination halls and stop cheating. Whilst the video
was ultimately revealed as a hoax (Metro 2014), the manner in which the
story was initially reported serves to indicate not only a degree of acceptance regarding the use of such technologies in schools, but also hints at
possible future uses of miniature, highly mobile video surveillance devices.
While there is discussion of such devices hovering over playgrounds, this is
currently a product of some US schools utilising drone building to teach
science and mathematics (NBCnews.com 2013). Significantly, educational
use of such devices could socialise students into accepting the presence of
surveillance drones in schools.
School video surveillance devices primarily seek to colonise space. Bodies
as the ‘geography closest in’ become entangled in such observational
British Journal of Sociology of Education
9
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
processes. Video cameras arguably have some panoptic qualities, investing
power in technological inspection and architecture. Students uncertain that
they are being watched, yet fearful of the possibility, might start to police
their own behaviour. Uncertainty is utilised as a means of social control (Lyon
1994, 65). Nevertheless, individuals do not always respond to disciplinary
technologies in an informed, compliant or ‘rational’ manner (Simon 2005).
Thus student bodies might not always be effectively ‘disciplined’ by video
surveillance and, as will be discussed later, it offers new spaces for resistance.
Dataveillance and digital embodiment
As Selwyn (2014, 2) indicates, digital data in schools can be generated
deliberately, automatically gathered through routine processes or volunteered. Once produced, such information might be subjected to dataveillance, which is ‘the systematic use of personal data systems in the
investigation or monitoring of the actions or communications of one or
more persons’ (Clarke 1988, 499).
Schools have traditionally gathered information on attendance, student
grades and serious incidents of misbehaviour. Recently such data systems
have developed to include a networked focus on presence (attendance, registration and admissions), finance (payrolls, budgeting and accounting), organisation (lesson timetabling, scheduling and planning) as well as activities
related to learning (school intranet, weblogs, learning management systems,
virtual learning environments, student dashboards, metrics and performance
feedback) (Selwyn 2011). Yet such a broad-ranging description still fails to
capture the full extent of school dataveillance. Following incidents of students cheating in their coursework, many UK schools and colleges now utilise plagiarism software, such as Turnitin. Online systems also allow parents
to check grades and see what homework is assigned (e.g. GradeSpeed), as
well as to examine what their child purchased for lunch (e.g. munchmonitor). Interestingly such software also records usage, prompting some schools
to send emails chastising parents when they fail to check the webpage.
While much performance-related data are collected and processed by educational institutions, there also exist a host of external bodies that enforce statutory requirements for specific information to be gathered within schools.
Thus, under the auspices of the UK Department for Education there exists a
National Pupil Database (a school census), the Common Assessment Framework (a personal profiling tool for when a child is thought to need extra services in education or health) and a range of other databases linked to social
care as well youth justice.
Whilst some of these school data are constructed through measurement
of student bodies, other elements relate to conduct and care. Although some
practices have clear disciplinary overtones, providing opportunities for
(self-)policing, others are concerned with social sorting and the construction
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
10
A. Hope
of a ‘digital self’. Drawing upon Poster’s (1990, 97) notion of the ‘data
double’, a new body may emerge from such processes, ‘an additional self’.
Thus Haggerty and Ericson (2000, 611) contend that ‘[t]he observed body
is … broken down … then reassembled in different settings through a series
of data flows. The result is a decorpo-realized body, a data double of pure
virtuality’. Rather than educational organisations reacting solely to student
behaviour, they might instead initiate interventions in response to prognostic
data. In so far as data inform strategies for intervention in the life of the
populus, ‘data doubles’ are biopolitical in nature. Such issues will be further
explored when considering the extent to which surveillance 2.0 has
manifested in schools.
Emerging school surveillance 2.0 themes
Having provided an overview of ‘new’ school surveillance devices, commented briefly upon function and made some initial observations regarding
how such technology might seek to objectify student bodies and normalise
behaviour, this paper now draws upon the notion of surveillance 2.0 to plot
certain trajectories. With its origins in software versioning, the term 2.0
attached to a name operates as a marketing label to suggest a radically
improved or superior product. The application of the version 2.0 tag to surveillance is commonly attributed to Naomi Klein’s (2008) discussion of new
monitoring technologies in China and the so-called Golden Shield. It is
claimed that under this system citizens are constantly monitored through
CCTV, computer tracking, Internet filtering, recorded telephone calls, digital
voice recognition software, national identity cards and biometric measures.
What is remarkable about such surveillance, according to Klein, is not just the
scope, but also the linking together of all of these tools in a massive searchable database of names, images, residency information, employment history
and biometric data. Citing Klein’s article and focusing upon schools, Kuehn
observes that ‘[a]lthough the linking of data about individual students is still
limited, one can see all of the pieces coming together that will make it
possible to create this totally invasive form of education’ (2008, 87).
Whilst both Klein and Kuehn see the defining feature of surveillance 2.0
as the interconnectedness of monitoring technologies and data, it is possible
to distinguish other emerging themes. Thus surveillance 2.0 has also been
used to describe new forms of online resistance, such as the publishing of
‘leaked’ information on the WikiLeaks website, and the increasing commodification of surveillance technologies in everyday life. In exploring these
themes, this paper does not seek to argue that school surveillance 2.0 has
yet emerged, but rather uses this notion as a heuristic to consider changes
in surveillance practices.
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
British Journal of Sociology of Education
11
Statistical surveillance and simulation
Lingard, Martino, and Rezai-Rashti (2013, 552) suggest that, within education, infrastructures of accountability and ‘datafication’ constitute a form of
global panopticism, ‘a single commensurate space or surface for measurement’. Significantly such data are political in nature, both shaping and being
shaped by social interests. Data production and use should not be regarded
as objective. Hence, Selwyn (2014, 6) notes that data processes are far from
mundane and procedural, but are powerful forms of meaning-making and
‘observing, measuring, describing, categorising, classifying, sorting, ordering
and ranking … are never wholly neutral, objective and “automated” but are
fraught with problems and compromises, biases and omissions’. Furthermore, once generated data can be utilised to construct policy problems and
offer overly simplistic solutions (Ozga 2012). Thus, Koyama and Menken
(2013) show how immigrant students in the United States were labelled as
the cause of school failure through the manipulation of various education
datasets.
Data-mining techniques involve semi-automatic analysis of huge sets of
data to distinguish previously unknown patterns or anomalies. Whilst
schools do not yet utilise such systems, the analysis of educational data currently goes well beyond producing merely descriptive, synchronic outputs.
Partly, as Klein (2008) indicates, this is a product of the increasing convergence of data management. Such merging enables new forms of synoptic
and predictive analysis. Indeed, Taylor (2013) suggests that the availability
of massive, interconnected datasets describing various behaviours is giving
rise to a new cycle of empirical modelling, seeking to predict future patterns. The use of such predictive analytics in schools is not a recent development, as evidenced by the US government’s student threat evaluation
programme that was piloted in 1999 (Staples 2000). Casella (2006, 18)
argues that such profiling software ‘lost steam’ as more resources were
directed to installing security devices in US schools. Nevertheless, predictive dataveillance is still in use, as illustrated by Victoria’s (Australia)
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development use of predictive analytics to estimate disengagement and dropout rates of 36,000
students (iTnews 2011). Such data-driven school surveillance seeks to anticipate reality aided by forms of diagnostic surveillance. This echoes
Bogard’s (1996, 76) observation that ‘the technological enlargement of the
field of perceptual control … has pushed surveillance beyond the very limits
of speed towards the purest form of anticipation’. The privileging of data
may have social–cultural implications for relationships inside schools. Bryce
et al. (2010, 15) warn of a ‘dehumanising, shift from social to informational
ways of authoritative knowing, from reliance on rich narrative accounts
about people to shallow database profiles’. This could reflect a shift in the
focus of school surveillance practices, as biopolitical datasets increasingly
12
A. Hope
impact on students’ lived experiences. Thus Selwyn (2014, 11) notes that
‘predictive’ profiling:
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
can lead to a variety of statistical discrimination, where individuals are reclassified in terms of their associations and linkages with others, and then
included/excluded on the basis of the attributes of the groups and data
segments that they belong to.
Greater dataveillance may lead to subtle changes in the operation of
biopower in schools. Hence, surveillance of abstract data could increasingly
be utilised in the biopolitical normalisation of a population through its role
in the social construction of educational policy problems and solutions. Yet
clearly not all statistical surveillance is covert. As students become increasingly ‘information literate’, some might utilise their data profile to access
new opportunities and benefits (Hope 2013). Apparent conformity might
mask resistance, as individuals aware of the importance of data seek to
‘game the system’, constructing digitised ‘doubles’ that will increase their
academic, social and economic prospects.
Resistance and technologies of the self
While traditional forms of opposition to school surveillance continue, such
as student petitions and walk-outs aimed at removing CCTV cameras, new
modes of resistance are also emerging. Mann, Nolan, and Wellman (2003)
thus note the growing potential to use technologies to monitor those in
authority. Labelling this inversion of scrutiny as ‘sousveillance’, they
encourage individuals to carry out their own surveillance to mirror and
confront the observational processes of bureaucratic organisations (Mann,
Nolan, and Wellman 2003, 333). Similarly, Koskela (2011, 274) draws
attention to the hijacking of surveillance, wherein people play with visual
recording equipment, ‘videotaping events with a camera phone and circulating the images online’. In some Australian schools, students are using
devices such as pen cameras and iPhones to secretly record images of other
students and teachers, then posting the results online (Sunday Telegraph
[Sydney] 2013). It is not only visual images that are being posted online,
websites such as Rate My Teacher provide an online area in which students
can submit comments about teachers, potentially exposing staff to a worldwide gaze. Students can also publish statements on Facebook and Twitter
that are critical of teachers, problematically blurring the line between sousveillance and public defamation of character. The generation and publishing
of content exposing the ‘watchers’ can be seen as an attempt to invert
power relations.
Some user-generated content seeks not to mirror traditional surveillance
practices, but moves beyond sousveillance to celebrate self-exposure,
attempting to craft new public identities. Bell (2009, 209) observes that
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
British Journal of Sociology of Education
13
people are ‘playing with, goading and yes, even flirting with surveillance’.
Hope (2010) relates an incident where a Year Ten student used a phone
camera to record herself and a friend drinking alcohol in the local shopping
centre toilets, before posting this video on the YouTube website. Such incidents of exhibitionism act as forms of resistance, facilitating new and varied
ways to (re)configure the ‘algebra of surveillance’, encouraging students to
perform surveillance in ways that seek to take back control. In this context,
the body becomes a site of opposition, acting as a subject of communication, refusing to be merely an object of information. As Waskul and Vannini
(2006, 7) suggest: ‘if the body is something that people do then it is in the
doings of people – not their flesh – that the body is embodied; an active
process by which the body is literally real(ized) and made meaningful’.
Such performances seek to embody resistance.
In his later work Foucault shifted his focus from technologies of domination, wherein modern social and political systems sought to control, supervise
and manipulate individuals and populations, to technologies of the self,
which describe individuals’ ‘operations on their own bodies and souls,
thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves’
(Foucault 1988, 18). Drawing upon the ‘technologies of the self’ it is possible
to perceive surveillance not merely as control, but as also allowing individuals to transform their own subjectivities. One of the main ways in which students might engage in such processes is through their use of social
networking websites. Echoing Bauman and Lyon (2013, 35) it could be
argued that exploring school surveillance without mentioning Facebook and
its ilk will become ‘simply inadequate’. This reflects the need to consider not
only the role that such items play in student identity construction, but also
the manner in which institutions seek to appropriate such devices for surveillance purposes. Yet as school surveillance spills beyond the grounds of
educational institution, utilising technologies that were not initially designed
for monitoring, it should not be assumed that students will behave passively.
Commodification, entertainment and control
In so far as private companies have convinced schools that ‘[u]sing security
equipment and having it used on you is a sign of being forward-thinking
and modern’ (Casella 2010, 79), such devices have become commodified,
with surveillance tools acting as cultural capital, signifying high expectations as well as a yearning for power and prestige. Yet it is not just the
security industry that could drive the development of surveillance 2.0.
The emergence of a range of products that combine entertainment with
self-policing of the body has resulted in what Rich and Miah (2009) label
prosthetic surveillance. This extension of the medical gaze ‘regulates and
defines bodies that are simultaneously hyper-text and flesh’ (Rich and Miah
2009, 163; original emphasis). Devices such as the Nintendo Wii Fit and
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
14
A. Hope
Microsoft’s Xbox Fitness seek to capture real-life movements, whilst recording and visualising various ‘health measures’, including heart rate, calories
burned and even body mass index. UK and US schools have used such
technologies ostensibly to combat child obesity, with New South Wales
schools allowing students to play virtual tennis, baseball and boxing on Wii
consoles during physical education classes (Sunday Telegraph 2010).
Although the surveillance capacity of such devices might not be the primary
concern of students simply eager to play video games, it can nevertheless
be seen as a process of socialising individuals into new modes of self-policing, whilst seeking to normalise certain measures of the ‘healthy body’.
Similarly the use of pedometers and other ‘quantified self’ devices, which
seek to utilise technology in the self-tracking of biological, physical, behavioural or environmental information, could also be seen as prosthetic surveillance. As Whitson (2013, 170) suggests, such forms of commodified
self-surveillance are popular not only because they seek to render messy
everyday lives ‘understandable and actionable’, but also because these applications involve gamification – that is, the use of game mechanics – to make
such monitoring pleasurable. Importantly, the use of such technologies may
also start to blur the boundaries between public/private and school/home.
After all, schools using pedometers require students to wear them all day.
Situating their discussion in a broader discourse of online health surveillance, Rich and Miah (2009) infer that such technologies expand the medical gaze through disciplinary practices and the regulation of bodies. Hence,
biopower is applied to virtual as well as physical bodies.
Conclusion
Fundamentally, the ‘tools used in education these days are still pretty much
Surveillance 1.0’ (Kuehn 2008, 87), but changes are occurring. The increasing importance of converging, online data could result in hyper-surveillance
schools, wherein institutions engage in predictive analytics of student’s ‘data
double’. Nevertheless, ‘[i]ndividuals are no longer primarily passive data
subjects. They are also increasingly the creators of data’ (World Economic
Forum 2012). Students will continue to use social networking sites, sharing
the private details of their everyday lives, self-fabricating, playfully engaging with surveillance and disclosure, ‘[m]aking oneself a sellable commodity’ (Bauman and Lyon 2013, 34). Meanwhile, web-based social networking
services, including instant messaging apps, will persist in monitoring student’s online conversations, so that they can target advertising. Consequently, any analysis of school surveillance practices, which fails to
consider both personal and commercial extramural monitoring technologies,
such as Facebook, ‘quantified self’ tools or the Nintendo Wii Fit, will look
increasingly inadequate and sociologically impoverished.
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
British Journal of Sociology of Education
15
Students’ corporeal forms remain an important focus for school surveillance in late modernity. Arguably the monitoring of their bodies has become
more invasive, with relatively little protest. Fingerprint identification, an
activity that had previously been reserved for those suspected of committing
crimes, is commonplace in schools. The use of metal detector arches
elevates physical searches to assembly-line proportions. While such
incursive practices might seek to influence bodily behaviours encouraging
self-policing, it is the normalisation of such monitoring that is most
remarkable. Invasive monitoring technologies are seen as a ‘natural’ part of
everyday life as schools induct children into the ‘surveillance society’.
Students are also managed through biopolitical strategies, ranging from
school health programmes to prosthetic surveillance through video games.
Embodied in various monitoring practices, biopower involves the operation
of ‘truth discourses’ about the vital character of people, intervention strategies in the name of the health of the masses and subjectification encouraging individuals to work on themselves (Rabinow and Rose 2006, 197).
Consequently, school surveillance technologies can be seen as part of a
moralising discourse, promoting an ‘ideal’ healthy student, with pressure
exerted on those who fail to conform. Yet normalising health discourses
have a long history in schools. What is different is the extent to which digital data bodies exert an influence in educational biopolitics. Data-driven
simulations mean that abstracted ‘risk factors’ may become triggers for
interventions. Representation of the body through data could become more
important in some circumstances than physical reality. All of this may occur
in a climate of increased individual responsibilisation, wherein students are
socialised into seeing social risks, such as ill health, insecurity and ‘poor’
education, as an issue of self-care and personal responsibility.
Foucault’s conceptualisation of biopower offers a nuanced framework
within which to consider ‘new’ school surveillance technologies, focusing
as it does on disciplinary practices and biopolitical management. Such an
approach will become increasingly important as research examines emerging
surveillance-related issues, such as students’ right to privacy, questions concerning the ownership of data and the social impact of ‘data doubles’.
Future research also needs to critically explore the socio-economic pressures
that have given rise to surveillance schools. Echoing Casella (2006, 2010),
there is a need to explore the roles of state financiers that have funded the
acquisition of school surveillance devices, security professionals who have
exploited new commercial opportunities in the education sector and the
judiciary, which has often ruled in favour of, or at least not against, the
public use of invasive monitoring technologies. Such political dynamics
should be considered against a back drop of devolved state power, increased
marketisation, growing responsibilisation of the populous and mass
desensitisation to intrusive surveillance (Hope 2014).
16
A. Hope
In conclusion, surveillance devices threaten the inherent nature of
schooling, limiting potential for democratic engagement, while undermining
the values of a progressive education. Consequently, this matter is not about
invasive surveillance technologies per se, but rather is deeply connected to
the fundamental issues of what education ought to be and how future
citizens should behave in a networked world.
Disclosure statement
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
Associated Press. 2014. “Marshalltown, Iowa, School District to Give Students
Pedometers.” Accessed September 19. http://www.omaha.com/news/marshall
town-iowa-school-district-to-give-students-pedometers/article_658d4a45-7906-57
90-8567-9b0ca0565506.html
Ball, S. 2013. Foucault, Power, and Education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bauman, Z., and D. Lyon. 2013. Liquid Surveillance: A Conversation. Cambridge:
Polity.
BBC News. 2003. “Eye Scan School Opens Doors.” Accessed March 21, 2013.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/3115428.stm
BBC News. 2013. “Hi-Tech Sensors Aim to Help Prevent Obesity.” Accessed
February 19, 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-25316229
Bell, D. 2009. “Surveillance is Sexy.” Surveillance and Society 6 (3): 203–212.
Big Brother Watch. 2012. “Class of 1984: The Extent of CCTV in Secondary
Schools and Academies.” Accessed March 15, 2013. http://www.bigbrother
watch.org.uk/home/2012/09/the-class-of-1984.html
Big Brother Watch. 2014. “Biometrics in Schools: The Extent of Biometrics in
English Secondary Schools and Academies.” Accessed September 19. http://
www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/files/reports/Biometrics_final.pdf
Bogard, W. 1996. The Simulation of Surveillance. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bryce, T., M. Nellis, A. Corrigan, H. Gallagher, P. Lee, and H. Sercombe. 2010.
“Biometric Surveillance in Schools: Cause for Concern or Case for
Curriculum?” Scottish Educational Review 42 (1): 3–22.
Casella, R. 2006. Selling Us the Fortress: The Promotion of Techno-Security
Equipment for Schools. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Casella, R. 2010. “Safety or Social Control? The Security Fortification of Schools
in a Capitalist Society.” In Schools under Surveillance: Cultures of Control in
Public Education, edited by T. Monahan and R. Torres, 73–86. New York:
Rutgers University Press.
Clarke, R. 1988. “Information Technology and Dataveillance.” Communications of
the ACM 31 (5): 498–512.
Cooks, L., and J. Warren. 2011. “SomeBodies(’) in School: Introduction.” Text and
Performance Quarterly 31 (3): 211–216.
Crawford, P., J. Hinson, K. Madsen, D. Neumark-Sztainer, and A. Nihiser. 2011.
“An Update on the Use and Value of School BMI Screening.” Surveillance,
and Reporting, Childhood Obesity 7 (6): 441–449.
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
British Journal of Sociology of Education
17
Deacon, R. 2006. “Michel Foucault on Education: A Preliminary Theoretical
Overview.” South African Journal of Education 26 (2): 177–187.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen
Lane.
Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings.
New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. 1988. “Technologies of the Self.” In Technologies of the Self, edited
by L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, and P. H. Hutton, 16–49. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Foucault, M. 2004. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège De France,
1975–1976. New York: Picador.
Foucault, M. 2007. Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège De
France, 1977–1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gastic, B. 2011. “Metal Detectors and Feeling Safe at School.” Education and
Urban Society 43 (4): 486–498.
Gibson, K., and Dempsey, S. 2013. “Make Good Choices, Kid: Biopolitics of Children’s Bodies and School Lunch Reform in Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution.”
Children’s Geographies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2013.827875.
Gill, M., and A. Spriggs. 2005. Assessing the Impact of CCTV. London: Home
Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Accessed January 19,
2015. https://www.cctvusergroup.com/downloads/file/Martin%20gill.pdf
Haggerty, K. D., and R. V. Ericson. 2000. “The Surveillant Assemblage.” British
Journal of Sociology 51 (4): 605–622.
Hall, N. 2003. “The Role of the Slate in Lancastrian Schools as Evidenced by
Their Manuals and Handbooks.” Paradigm 2 (7): 46–54.
Herald Sun. 2014. “Parents to Get Electronic School Safety Alerts in AustralianFirst Initiative.” Accessed October 21. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victo
ria/parents-to-get-electronic-school-safety-alerts-in-australianfirst-initiative/storyfni0fit3-1227086940998
Hope, A. 2005. “Panopticism, Play and the Resistance of Surveillance: Case Studies of the Observation of Student Internet Use in UK Schools.” The British
Journal of Sociology of Education 26 (3): 359–373.
Hope, A. 2009. “CCTV, School Surveillance and Social Control.” British
Educational Research Journal 35 (6): 891–907.
Hope, A. 2010. “Student Resistance to the Surveillance Curriculum.” International
Studies in Sociology of Education 20 (4): 319–334.
Hope, A. 2013. “‘Clouds’ That Reign over: Learning to Be Surveilled in the ‘Database School’.” Learning with New Media Research Group, Monash University.
Accessed March 4, 2014. http://newmediaresearch.educ.monash.edu.au/lnmrg/
blog/learning-to-be-surveilled
Hope, A. 2014. “Governmentality and the Selling of School Surveillance.” Paper
presented at The Australian Sociological Association Conference, University of
South Australia, Adelaide, November 24–27.
Huffington Post. 2010. “School Caught in Spying Scandal Admits Activating
Webcams on Students’ Laptops.” Accessed March 15, 2013. http://www.huffing
tonpost.com/2010/02/22/harriton-high-school-admi_n_471321.html
iTnews. 2011. “Victorian Schools Trial Predictive Analytics.” Accessed March 15,
2013. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/281477,victorian-schools-trial-predictiveanalytics.aspx
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
18
A. Hope
Klein, N. 2008. “China’s All-Seeing Eye.” Rolling Stone. Accessed March 15,
2013. http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008/05/chinas-all-seeing-eye
Koskela, H. 2011. “Hijackers and Humble Servants: Individuals as Camwitnesses
in Contemporary Controlwork.” Theoretical Criminology 15 (3): 269–282.
Koyama, J., and K. Menken. 2013. “Emergent Bilinguals: Framing Students as
Statistical Data?” Bilingual Research Journal 36 (1): 82–99.
Kruger, E., S. Magnet, and J. Van Loon. 2008. “Biometric Revisions of the ‘Body’
in Airports and US Welfare Reform.” Body & Society 14 (2): 99–121.
Kuehn, L. 2008. “Surveillance 2.0: The “Information Panopticon” and Education.”
Our Schools, Our Selves. 2008 (Summer): 81–91.
Lingard, B., W. Martino, and G. Rezai-Rashti. 2013. “Testing Regimes,
Accountabilities and Education Policy: Commensurate Global and National
Developments.” Journal of Education Policy 28 (5): 539–556.
Lyon, D. 1994. The Electronic Eye: The Rise of Surveillance Society. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Lyon, D. 2007. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.
MailOnline. 2010. “School Installs £9,000 Facial Recognition Cameras to Stop Students Turning up Late... and Teachers Could Be Next Target.” Accessed March
15, 2013. http://openyoureyesnews.com/2010/10/08/school-installs-9000-facialrecognition-cameras-to-stop-students-turning-up-late-and-teachers-could-be-nexttarget/
Mann, S., J. Nolan, and B. Wellman. 2003. “Sousveillance: Inventing and Using
Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance
Environments.” Surveillance & Society 1 (3): 331–355.
Marx, G., and V. Steeves. 2010. “From the Beginning: Children as Subjects and
Agents of Surveillance.” Surveillance & Society 7 (3/4): 192–230.
McKeganey, N. 2005. Random Drug-Testing of Schoolchildren. A Shot in the Arm
or a Shot in the Foot for Drug Prevention? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Accessed Jun 6. www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1859352839.pdf
McNeill, T. 2013. “Sex Education and the Promotion of Heteronormativity.”
Sexualities 16 (7): 826–846.
Metro. 2014. “School Invests in Drone Technology to Patrol Exam Halls and Stop
Cheats.” Accessed March 5. http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/12/school-invests-indrone-technology-to-patrol-exam-halls-and-stop-cheats-4259385/
Mills, S. 2003. Michel Foucault. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mills, C. 2013. “Biopoltical Life.” In Foucault, Biopoltics and Governmentality,
edited by J. Nilsson and S. Wallenstein, 73–90. Huddinge: Sodertorn
University.
Monahan, T. 2006. “The Surveillance Curriculum: Risk Management and Social
Control in the Neoliberal School.” In Surveillance and Security: Technological
Politics and Power in Everyday Life, edited by T. Monahan, 109–124. New
York: Routledge.
Monahan, T., and R. Torres. 2010. “Introduction.” In Schools under Surveillance:
Cultures of Control in Public Education, edited by T. Monahan and R. Torres,
1–18. New York: Rutgers University Press.
NBCnews.com. 2013. “How Drones Teach Kids Science & Math.” Accessed
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51247416/ns/technol
September
19,
2014.
ogy_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/how-drones-teach-kids-science-math/
Observer. 2008. “Knife Scanners at School Gates to Curb Attacks.” Accessed
March 15, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/20/politics.pupilbehav
iour
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
British Journal of Sociology of Education
19
Ozga, J. 2012. “Governing Knowledge: Data, Inspection and Education Policy in
Europe.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 10 (4): 439–455.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology [UK]. 2004. “Drug Tests, Postnote, September, Number 228.” Accessed March 20, 2013. www.parliament.uk/
briefing-papers/POST-PN-228.pdf
Peterson, R., and R. Skiba. 2000. “Creating School Climates That Prevent School
Violence.” The Clearing House 74 (3): 155–163.
Poster, M. 1990. The Mode of Information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Rabinow, P., and N. Rose. 2006. “Biopower Today.” Biosocities 1 (2): 195–217.
Rich, E. 2010. “Obesity Assemblages and Surveillance in Schools.” International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 23 (7): 803–821.
Rich, E., and A. Miah. 2009. “Prosthetic Surveillance: The Medical Governance of
Healthy Bodies in Cyberspace.” Surveillance & Society 6 (2): 163–177.
Scotsman.com. 2006. “Biometric Scans Served up with School Meals.” Accessed
March 20, 2013. http://www.scotsman.com/news/education/biometric-scansserved-up-with-school-meals-1-722986
Selwyn, N. 2011. “‘It’s All about Standardisation’ – Exploring the Digital (Re)Configuration of School Management and Administration.” Cambridge Journal of
Education 41 (4): 473–488.
Selwyn, N. 2014. “Data Entry: Towards the Critical Study of Digital Data and
Education.” Learning, Media and Technology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17439884.2014.921628
Simon, B. 2005. “The Return of Panopticism: Supervision, Subjection and the New
Surveillance.” Surveillance & Society 3 (1): 1–20.
Staples, W. G. 2000. Everyday Surveillance: Vigilance and Visibility in Postmodern
Life. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Star Tribune. 2014. “Wristbands Help Automate Online Gym Class.” Accessed
February 20. http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/240589871.html
Sunday Telegraph [Sydney]. 2010. “This is the Future of Sport in Schools – Wii
instead of PE.” Accessed September 21, 2014. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.
au/this-is-the-future-of-sport-in-schools-wii-instead-of-pe/story-e6freuy9-1225849
277763?nk=665c53b821b18edf63c7c4d25cd325cf
Sunday Telegraph [Sydney]. 2013. “Students Secretly Filming in Class.” Accessed
March 15. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/students-secretly-film
ing-in-class/story-fndo28a5-1226548162863
Taylor, E. 2010. “I Spy with My Little Eye: The Use of CCTV in Schools and the
Impact of Privacy.” Sociological Review 58 (3), 381–405.
Taylor, E. 2012. “The Rise of the Surveillance School.” In Handbook of
Surveillance Studies, edited by K. Ball, K. Haggerty, and D. Lyon, 225–232.
London: Routledge.
Taylor, L. 2013. “Towards a Sociology of Data.” Accessed 4 March 2014. http://lin
nettaylor.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/towards-a-sociology-of-data/
Taylor, E. 2014. Surveillance Schools: Security, Discipline and Control in
Contemporary Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
USA Today. 2007. Schools Using Breathalyzers to Fight Teen Drinking. Accessed
March 20, 2013. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-15-Breath
alyzer_N.htm
Waskul, D., and P. Vannini. 2006. “Introduction: The Body in Symbolic
Interaction.” In Body/Embodiment: Symbolic Interaction and the Sociology of
the Body, edited by D. Waskul and P. Vannini, 1–18. Aldershot: Ashgate.
20
A. Hope
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 02:25 10 February 2015
Whitson, J. 2013. “Gaming the Quantified Self.” Surveillance & Society 11 (1/2):
163–176.
World Economic Forum. 2012. “Rethinking Personal Data: Strengthening Trust.”
Accessed March 4, 2014. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_IT_Rethinking
PersonalData_Report_2012.pdf
Wright, J., and V. Harwood, eds. 2008. Biopolitics and the ‘Obesity Epidemic’.
Abingdon: Routledge.