Research foundations
Our research is underpinned by a set of understandings about the way we think about technology, and about the way we conceptualise equity and justice in school contexts, and about the value of ethnographic research and engagement with stakeholders.
In this project, we understand edtech to include all digital technologies (both hardware and software) that are used in schools. This includes technologies that have been developed specifically for some aspect of learning, teaching and assessment; those that have been developed to support the administrative functions of the school (e.g. for reporting, timetabling and record keeping); the everyday or ‘infrastructural’ technologies that are routinely used in and outside schools for all purposes (e.g. email, online search) and technologies that young people use for pursuing their own interests outside of the school that sometimes are brought into formal educational settings.
There has been a surprising lack of in-depth research to examine the ways that digital technologies are being used in classrooms and how the use of such systems can reinforce or reconfigure existing educational and social inequity. Precisely what these edtech systems ‘do’ within the classroom or other context of learning, or indeed should do, remains undertheorised and empirically underexplored. This study aims to address this gap. It examines both these sociological and technical aspects by taking a relational, socio-technical approach, that attends to the ways in which varied digital technologies are used in the classroom. The research explores three broad issues with a focus on educational and social inequity: 1) how the use of edtech systems change existing practices and relationships between teachers and students; 2) the inbuilt biases and underpinning values embodied in such systems; and 3) the ways in which access and use of edtech varies across contexts and circumstances. In this project, we work to understand technology use by combining walkthroughs of edtech (e.g. Decuypere, 2021) alongside ethnographic work in schools. In doing so, we aim to interrogate the underlying commercial, cultural and pedagogical values of different technologies, the political frameworks that position their use, account for the varied social and educational practices that come from using these technologies in classrooms.
Often, equitable technology use is discussed in terms of economic and human resources: more equitable technology use is therefore seen as a question of better access to technology, or training to use it more effectively. In our research, we acknowledge that resources are of course a central component of addressing inequity. However, such a framing is too narrow, and positions technology as a neutral tool that can be relied on to bring about straightforward and positive effects. Instead, we view technology as a complex socio, cultural and material artefact that is embedded within social structures, and we seek to explore the complexity of what actually happens when technology is used in classrooms and schools.
In exploring issues of social and educational equity, we draw on Nancy Fraser’s multi-dimensional framing of social justice, including where disadvantage is thought to arise from recognitive barriers, such as culture, school characteristics, pupil background or specific learning difficulties and disabilities. Such inequities might manifest through underlying pedagogies of edtech platforms, or in the circumstances of their use, and be addressed through greater recognition of the needs and circumstances of teachers and learners. Inequities might also manifest as a political issue of representation, in which schools, teachers or groups of students lack agency or empowerment when engaging in social, educational and digital activities.
We believe ethnographic research yields insights that other research methods cannot easily generate and that are rarely reflected in the scarce evidence base on edtech and its potential to reduce inequalities (Eynon et al., 2025). In-depth ethnography provides a powerful foundation for meaningful knowledge exchange with stakeholders because it captures the evolving, interconnected realities in which policies and practices unfold (Couceiro, 2024). By spending extended time in schools, researchers can trace how technologies are woven into institutional cultures and daily routines, revealing the nuances and contradictions that other methods often overlook. Its analytical strength derives from the capacity to collect data from multiple perspectives over an extended period, thereby enabling identification of recurring patterns across a range of voices and experiences. Importantly, ethnography foregrounds the lived experiences of teachers and students. When applied across multiple research sites, this approach also enables comparative insights that strengthen the evidence base for informed policy and practice.
We employ purposive and maximal variation sampling to select our school ethnography sites, identifying contexts that are culturally, economically and geographically varied. Schools have been selected on the basis of diversity in the student population (as measured by ethnicity, EAL, and SEN); wealth / poverty of local area (as measured by the index of multiple deprivation and ACORN); and location (as measured by ONS rural urban classifications and region). Attention to school educational outcomes and level of technology were also considered as part of the selection. This sampling strategy was designed to consider various aspects of local, regional and national contexts that help determine what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why.
In this project, taking a socio‑technical approach has involved examining technologies themselves (how they function, what they claim to achieve, their embedded values, and the potential risks of bias), alongside analysing the contexts in which they are used including how teachers and students engage with them in everyday practice.
We suggest that the socio-technical audit – a sustained, systematic and reflexive process for examining both the sociological and technical dynamics underpinning the use of educational technologies – offers a methodological bridge between the study of everyday educational practices alongside critical interrogation of EdTech.
Alongside the ethnography, that provides a view from practice, we employ a series of participatory workshops to bring teachers, edtech developers, academics, and policymakers into conversation about the design and use of technologies in secondary schools, to reflect on the workshops and to promote debates about what future equity focused approaches to edtech could look like. Bringing these diverse stakeholder groups together created a shared space for learning, dialogue, and the co‑production of insights to inform more equitable approaches to edtech, supporting wider efforts to cultivate shared responsibility for educational improvement (Moss, 2024). We also draw on the wider expertise and networks of our advisory board, to critically engage with our findings and to make recommendations for future knowledge mobilisation activities.