Theoretical Frameworks for Policy Analysis

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 42.79 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 52.74 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 52.74 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

References

• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Apple, M. W. (2012). Education and power. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10–17. doi:10.1080/0159630930130203. Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. (1994a). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ball, S. J. (2012a). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bohman, J. (2013). Critical Theory. Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/critical-theory/. Accessed 12 May 2016.
• Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and changing schools. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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
• Dale, R. (1989). The state and education policy. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative Education, 41(2), 117–149. doi:10.1080/03050060500150906. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• de Saussure, F. (1974). Course in general linguistics. (C. Bally, C. A. Sechehaye, & A. Reidlinger, Trans.). London: Fontana. (Original work published 1916). Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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
• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse and text: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Longman. Google Scholar
• Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2013). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and practice. London: Heinemann. Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (1995). The politics of social research. London: Sage. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Heller, J. (1962). Catch-22. London: Cape. Google Scholar
• Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation, and education policy. New York: Pergamon. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Horkheimer, M. (1982). Critical theory. New York: Seabury Press. Google Scholar
• How, A. (2003). Critical theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
• Humes, W., & Bryce, T. (2003). Post-structuralism and policy research in education. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 175–187. doi:10.1080/0268093022000043056. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lindlof, T., & Taylor, B. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar
• Lingard, B. (1996). Educational policy making in a postmodern state. Australian Educational Researcher, 23(1), 65–91. doi:10.1007/BF03219613. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Marshall, J. (2004). Poststructuralism, philosophy, pedagogy. Dordrecht: Kluwer. BookGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Morton, A. D. (2007). Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and passive revolution in the global political economy. London: Pluto Press. Google Scholar
• Olssen, M. (2003). Structuralism, post-structuralism, neo-liberalism: Assessing Foucault’s legacy. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 189–202. doi:10.1080/0268093022000043047. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Buckingham: Open University Press. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Poster, M. (1984). Foucault, Marxism, and history: Mode of production versus mode of information. Oxford, UK: Polity Press. Google Scholar
• Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Välimaa, J. (2004). Nationalisation, localisation and globalisation in Finnish higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 27–54. doi:10.2307/4151529. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Vidovich, L. (2007). Removing policy from its pedestal: Some theoretical framings and practical possibilities. Educational Review, 59(3), 285–298. doi:10.1080/00131910701427231. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• 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
• 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. ArticleGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Australia Jon Yorke
2. The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia Lesley Vidovich

1. Jon Yorke