Advertisement

Theoretical Frameworks for Policy Analysis

  • Jon Yorke
  • Lesley Vidovich
Chapter
  • 784 Downloads
Part of the Policy Implications of Research in Education book series (PIRE, volume 7)

Abstract

Chapter 4 details the contribution of several different theories as the foundation for the analysis of quality and standards policy in this study. Specifically, this chapter explicates and critiques the central principles of critical theory and post-structuralism, with the former having a more macro focus and the latter orienting more towards micro level interactions. The primary advantage of drawing on both theories, in a hybridised approach, is to span macro (global) to micro (institutional) levels and to capture the complexity and contestation embedded in policy processes in globalising times. These two theories underpin the concept of a ‘policy trajectory’ framework which guides the structure of the study. A policy trajectory approach consists of the contexts of influences, policy text production, practices/effects and longer term outcomes. While these four contexts represent continuous policy processes, they are separated here for analytic convenience. They are used to generate the four main research questions for the study.

Keyword

Critical theory Poststructuralism Policy analysis Policy trajectory Hybrid policy analysis Critical discourse analysis (CDA) 

References

  1. Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1), 105–131. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, N. (2014). Policy learning and Europeanisation in education: The governance of a field and the transfer of knowledge. In A. Nordin & D. Sundberg (Eds.), Transnational policy flows in European education: The making and governing of knowledge in the education policy field (pp. 123–140). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  3. Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12–44. doi: 10.1177/0895904803260022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apple, M. W. (2012). Education and power. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10–17. doi: 10.1080/0159630930130203.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, S. J. (1994a). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, S. J. (1994b). Some reflections on policy theory: A brief response to Hatcher and Troyna. Journal of Education Policy, 9(2), 171–182. doi: 10.1080/0268093940090205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119–130. doi: 10.1080/03050069828225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ball, S. J. (2012a). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Ball, S. J. (2012b). Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university. British Journal of Educational Studies, 60(1), 17–28. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2011.650940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Biesta, G., & Stams, G. J. (2001). Critical thinking and the question of critique: Some lessons from deconstruction. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20(1), 57–74. doi: 10.1023/A:1005290910306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bohman, J. (2013). Critical Theory. Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/critical-theory/. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  14. Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Cantwell, B., & Maldonado‐Maldonado, A. (2009). Four stories: Confronting contemporary ideas about globalisation and internationalisation in higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(3), 289–306. doi: 10.1080/14767720903166103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole, M. (2003). Might it be in the practice that it fails to succeed? A Marxist critique of claims for postmodernism and poststructuralism as forces for social change and social justice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(4), 487–500. doi: 10.1080/01425690301922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costa, E. (2011). The OECD’s ‘Programme for International Student Assessment’ (PISA): A ‘glonacal’ regulation tool of educational policies. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Berlin, Germany, September 2011.Google Scholar
  18. Dale, R. (1989). The state and education policy. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dale, R. (1992). Whither the state and education policy? Recent work in Australia and New Zealand. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 13(3), 387–395. doi: 10.1080/0142569920130308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative Education, 41(2), 117–149. doi: 10.1080/03050060500150906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Saussure, F. (1974). Course in general linguistics. (C. Bally, C. A. Sechehaye, & A. Reidlinger, Trans.). London: Fontana. (Original work published 1916).Google Scholar
  22. De Lissovoy, N., & Mclaren, P. (2003). Educational ‘accountability’ and the violence of capital: A Marxian reading. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 131–143. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. deLeon, P., & Vogenbeck, D. (2007). The policy sciences at the crossroads. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 3–14). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  24. Evans, J., & Penney, D. (1995). The politics of pedagogy: Making a national curriculum physical education. Journal of Education Policy, 10(1), 27–44. doi: 10.1080/0268093950100102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans, J., Davies, B., & Penney, D. (1994). Whatever happened to the subject and the state in policy research in education? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 14(2), 57–64. doi: 10.1080/0159630930140205.Google Scholar
  26. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse and text: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  29. Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2013). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Fanghanel, J. (2007). Local responses to institutional policy: A discursive approach to positioning. Studies in Higher Education, 32(2), 187–205. doi: 10.1080/03075070701267244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Foucault, M. (1980). The confessions of the flesh (C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper, Trans.). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 by Michael Foucault (pp. 194–228). New York: Pantheon. (Original work published 1977).Google Scholar
  32. Grek, S. (2013). Expert moves: International comparative testing and the rise of expertocracy. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 695–709. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2012.758825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and practice. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  34. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hammersley, M. (1995). The politics of social research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Hammersley, M. (2007a). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 287–305. doi: 10.1080/17437270701614782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hammersley, M. (2007b). Philosophy’s contribution to social science research on education. In D. Bridges & R. Smith (Eds.), Philosophy, methodology and educational research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Hatcher, R., & Troyna, B. (1994). The ‘policy cycle’: A Ball by Ball account. Journal of Education Policy, 9(2), 155–170. doi: 10.1080/0268093940090204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heller, J. (1962). Catch-22. London: Cape.Google Scholar
  40. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation, and education policy. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  41. Hill, D. (2001). State theory and the neo-liberal reconstruction of schooling and teacher education: A structuralist neo-Marxist critique of postmodernist, quasi-postmodernist, and culturalist neo-Marxist theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(1), 135–155. doi: 10.2307/1393219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hodgson, N., & Standish, P. (2009). Uses and misuses of poststructuralism in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(3), 309–326. doi: 10.1080/17437270903259865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Horkheimer, M. (1982). Critical theory. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
  44. How, A. (2003). Critical theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Humes, W., & Bryce, T. (2003). Post-structuralism and policy research in education. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 175–187. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hyatt, D. (2013a). The critical higher education policy discourse analysis framework. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 41–59). Bingley: Emerald Insight.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hyatt, D. (2013b). The critical policy discourse analysis frame: Helping doctoral students engage with the educational policy analysis. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(8), 833–845. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2013.795935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–62). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  49. Lange, B., & Alexiadou, N. (2010). Policy learning and governance of education policy in the EU. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 443–463. doi: 10.1080/02680931003782819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Lingard, B. (1996). Educational policy making in a postmodern state. Australian Educational Researcher, 23(1), 65–91. doi: 10.1007/BF03219613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Luke, A. (2002). Beyond science and ideology critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 96–110. doi: 10.1017/S0267190502000053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
  54. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. doi: 10.1023/A:1014699605875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marshall, J. (2004). Poststructuralism, philosophy, pedagogy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Molina, P. S. (2009). Critical analysis of discourse and of the media: Challenges and shortcomings. Critical Discourse Studies, 6(3), 185–198. doi: 10.1080/17405900902974878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moore, R. (2007). Going critical: The problem of problematizing knowledge in education studies. Critical Studies in Education, 48(1), 25–41. doi: 10.1080/17508480601120970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morton, A. D. (2007). Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and passive revolution in the global political economy. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  59. Olssen, M. (2003). Structuralism, post-structuralism, neo-liberalism: Assessing Foucault’s legacy. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 189–202. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Olssen, M. (2004). Foucault and Marxism: Rewriting the theory of historical materialism. Policy Futures in Education, 2(3), 454–482. doi: 10.2304/pfie.2004.2.3.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Peters, M., & Humes, W. (2003). Editorial: The reception of post-structuralism in educational research and policy. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 109–113. doi: 10.1080/0268093022000043119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Poster, M. (1984). Foucault, Marxism, and history: Mode of production versus mode of information. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  64. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Saarinen, T., & Ursin, J. (2011). Dominant and emerging approaches in the study of higher education policy change. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 143–156. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.538472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Simons, M., Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2009). Re-reading education policies. In M. Simons, M. Olssen, & M. Peters (Eds.), Re-reading education policies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century (pp. 41–102). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  67. Springer, S. (2012). Neoliberalism as discourse: Between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian poststructuralism. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(2), 133–147. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2012.656375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: Using critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433–451. doi: 10.1080/0268093042000227483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Välimaa, J. (2004). Nationalisation, localisation and globalisation in Finnish higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 27–54. doi: 10.2307/4151529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vidovich, L. (2002). Quality assurance in Australian higher education: Globalisation and ‘steering at a distance’. Higher Education, 43(3), 391–408. doi: 10.1023/A:1014616110418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vidovich, L. (2004). Global-national-local dynamics in policy processes: A case of ‘quality’ policy in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(3), 341–354. doi: 10.1080/0142569042000216981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vidovich, L. (2007). Removing policy from its pedestal: Some theoretical framings and practical possibilities. Educational Review, 59(3), 285–298. doi: 10.1080/00131910701427231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vidovich, L. (2013). Policy research in higher education: Theories and methods for globalising times? In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (international perspectives on higher education research, volume 9) (pp. 21–39). Bingley: Emerald Insight.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vidovich, L., & Slee, R. (2001). Bringing universities to account? Exploring some global and local policy tensions. Journal of Education Policy, 16(5), 431–453. doi: 10.1080/02680930110071039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wagner, P. (2007). Public policy, social science and the state: An historical perspective. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 29–40). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  76. Wang, C.-L. (2011). Power/knowledge for educational theory: Stephen Ball and the reception of Foucault. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 45(1), 141–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2011.00789.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Yorke
    • 1
  • Lesley Vidovich
    • 2
  1. 1.Curtin UniversityBentleyAustralia
  2. 2.The University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations