北京师范大学
教育研究方法讲座系列 (2):
教育政策研究
第六讲
教育政策制订过程的研究
A. Theories of the Policy-making Process
1. The first generation of policy-making process theories
a. Scientific-rational model
b. Incrementalist model
c. Garbage can model
2. The second generation pf policy-making process theories
a. Comprehensive rational model
b. The stages heuristic model
c. New institutionalism model
d. The multiple stream model
e. The Discourse model
B. Comprehensive Rationalist Perspective in Policy Making Theory
1. Comprehensive rational framework: The ideal-typical framework
a. Problem analysis
i. Pathology control approach
ii. Desirability striving approach
b. Comprehensive information gathering
c. Solution analysis: Best solution and maximize approach
2. Harold Lasswells’ intelligence system for policy making
a. Intelligence: The stage of intelligence collection, which consists of
i. Information of the status quo of the phenomenon to be intervene
ii. Information of causal relations among vital constituents in
operation within the policy phenomenon
iv. Information of the feasibility of candidate solutions
v. Cost-benefit analysis of candidate solutions
b. Promotion: The stage of considering the pros and cons of candidate
solutions
c. Prescription: The stage of making decision on the prescription of the
course of action to be taken
d. Invocation: The stage of laying down the rules and regulations
based upon which the policy prescriptions can be invoked
e. Application: The stage of carrying out the course of action stipulated
in the policy by the designated authority.
f. Termination: The stage of bringing the course of action to a close as
designed
g. Appraisal: The stage of evaluating the effectiveness or/even
efficiency of the policy measures.
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
1
C. Political Perspective in Policy Making Theory
1. Criticism on comprehensive rational framework by incrementalism and
the introduction of political rationality into the policy process study
2. Conceptual differences between political rationality and means-end
rationality
a. Means-end rationality refers to agency that a person acts in a
conscious and knowledgeable “way in which the attainment of his
goal can be maximized in the real world.” (Dahl & Lindblom, 1992,
p.57)
b. Political rationality refers to the agency that the person will make
conscious and knowledgeable consideration of the political reality
and its entailed constraints and opportunities, within which the
maximization of the means-to-an-end project is carried out.
c. Pluralism: The political system model
i. The general political system model: Pluralism as a theory of
policy making or politics in general is generated from the political
system model. In political system model, political process is
characterized as input-process-output-feedback model.
ii. Pluralistic model characterizes the policy making with the
following attributes
- Plurality of interest groups each with equal capacities in
inputting political demands into the polity
- The polity processes the plurality of political demands in
impartial and indiscriminant manner
- Plurality of administrative output to meet with plurality of
political demands
d. Advocacy coalition model
This model further specifies that the networking among policy actors
in policy making process by put forth the concept of advocacy
coalition. It indicates that policy actors will form coalition in order to
advocate a particular policy choice. These coalitions will
subsequently constitute a stabilizing parameter or institutional inertia
within a policy area. (To be explicated in Topic 10 & 11 on Policy
Implementation)
e. The state theory
State theorists criticize pluralism and political system of treating the
state as a blackbox or an impartial arbitrator of political demands. In
replacement, they put forth different thesis on the natures and
features of the modern state
i. The instrumental-state perspective,
ii. The corporatist-state perspective,
iii. The derivative-state perspective,
iv. Competition-state perspective, …
D. Simon and March’s Contribution to the New–institutionalism:
1. The contribution of Herbert Simon: Herbert A. Simon, the Nobel
laureate in Economics 1978, in his now-classic Administrative Behavior
(1997/1945) has made to important distinctions,
a. Distinction between economic man and administrative man: Simon
underlined that " The model of economic man was far more
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
2
completely and formally developed than the model of the satisficing
administrator. …limited rationality was defined largely as a residual
category—as a departure from rationality." (P. 118)
b. Distinction between the maximization principle (best solution) and
satisfice principle (good-enough solution): "Whereas economic man
supposedly maximizes—selects the best alternative from among all
those available to him—his cousin, the administrator,
satisfices—looks for course of action that is satisfactory or "good
enough". (P.119)
2. James March’s conception of logic of appropriateness:
James G. March, who once coauthored with Simon in another
now-classic, Organizations (1958/1993) and has since then become
one of the representative figures in new-institutionalism, underlines that
a. Policy making process is not simply a rational calculation of
means-end and/or cost-benefit analyses but should be conceived
predominantly as institutional processes; hence they are by
definition influenced if not determined by the features, structures and
cultures of the institutions, in which the policy making processes are
supposed to undergo.
c. Accordingly, he makes the distinction between the logics of
consequence and that of appropriateness.
i. Logic of consequence: “The idea is that a reasoning decision
maker will consider alternatives in terms of their consequences
for preferences.” In other words, it assumes that “decision
processes …are consequential and preference-based. They are
consequential in the sense that action depends on anaticipation
of the future effects of current actions. Alternatives are
interpreted in terms of their expected consequences. They are
preference-based in the sense that consequences are evaluated
in terms of personal preferences. Alternatives are compared in
terms of the extent to which their expected consequences are
thought to serve the preferences of the decision make. (March,
1994, P. 2)
ii. Logic of appropriateness: “When individuals and organizations
fulfill identifies, they follow rules or procedures that they see as
appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves. Neither
preferences as they are normally conceived nor expectations of
future consequences enter directly into the calculus.” (March,
1994, p. 57)
iii. Accordingly, decision makers are no longer based on the choices
solely on consequences of actions and the extent that their
preferences are satisfied by the consequences of actions.
Instead they would base their choices on the follows: (p.58)
“1. The question of recognition: What kind of situation is this?
2. The question of identity: What kind of person am I? Or what
kind of organization is this?
3. The question of rules: What does a person such as I, or an
organization such as this, do in a situation as this?” (March,
1994, P. 58)
3. Taking together, Simon and March’s conceptions on decision making
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
3
process, policy making processes are no longer conceived as simple
rational, consequential and preference-based calculations taking places
in some socio-cultural vacuum. Policy-making processes must be
studied against the institutional contexts and situations in which they are
embedded. Decision makers, who recognized in these institutional
contexts, are embodied with particular identities. And deriving from
these institutional contexts and identities are rules that these decision
makers would find themselves obliged to follow.
E. Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development in Rational-Choice
Institutionalism:
Elinor Ostrom, one of the co-winners of the 2009 Nobel Prize in economic
science, has developed the IAD framework to analyze how an aggregate of
rational decision makers come to reciprocal decision of mutual benefits.
(Ostrom, 1990; 1999; 2005) The framework is made up of three tiers of
conceptual units, namely (1) the action arena, (2) the exogenous variables,
and (3) the interaction patterns and their outcomes. This framework can be
represented as follows. (Source: Ostrom, 2005, P. 13)
1. The action arena: The core conceptual unit of the IAD framework is what
Ostrom called the action arena. The action arena of made up of two units,
namely the actors and action situation
a. Action situation: “The structure of an action situation includes
i. the set of participants,
ii. the specific positions to be filled by participants
iii. the set of allowable actions and their linkage to outcomes,
iv. the potential outcomes that are linked to individual sequence of
actions,
v. the level of control each participant has over choice,
vi. the information available to participants about the structure of the
action situation, and
vii. the cost and benefits―which serve as incentive and
deterrents―assigned to actions and outcomes.” (Ostrom, 1999, P.
43)
In addition, an action situation can further be characterized as
recursive or non-recursive. This conceptual unit can be represented as
follows. (Source: P. 33)
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
4
Recursive
Situation
Non-recursive
Situation
b. The actors: Actors in the action arena can either be “a single
individuals or a group functioning as a corporate actor.” (Ostrom, 1999,
P. 44) This actors are assumed to possess
i. meanings and values imputed to the situations;
ii. resources, information, and beliefs;
iii. information-processing capacities; and
iv. decision-making strategies brought to the situation.
With these possessions, Ostrom suggested that actors can further be
characterized into for examples as “Homo economicus”, “Fallible
learner”, “opportunist”, etc.
2. The exogenous Variables: The second tier of conceptual unit consists of
three exogenous variables, each of which will asset its effect on the
dependent variable, i.e. action arena. These exogenous variables include
a. The rules in use:
i. The concept of rules: Ostrom defines rules as “shared
understanding among those involved that refer to enforced
prescriptions about what actions are required, prohibited, or
permitted. All rules are the results of implicit or explicit efforts to
achieve order and predictability among humans by creating classes
of persons (positions) that are then required, permitted, or forbidden
to take classes of persons in relation to required, permitted, or
forbidden states of the world.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 49, original
emphases)
ii. Rule configurations: Ostrom differentiates seven types of working
rules each of which affect one aspect of the structure of the
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
5
respective action arena. These rules are represented as follows.
(Source: Ostrom, 2005, P. 189)
Accordingly, these seven types of rule will configure into a set of
“rules-in-use” in a particular action arena and subsequently in an
institution.
b. States of the world: It refers to the biophysical/material condition, in
which the action arena is embedded. Ostrom has specified the
attributes of the states of the world with two dimensions, namely
excludability and subtractability.
i. Excludability refers to the extent that whether the goods and/or
services available in a given state of the world are difficult and costly
to exclude those who are not entitled to consume the respective
goods and/or services.
ii. Subtractability refers to the extent that whether numbers of
consumers consuming the goods and/or service in a given state of
the world will subtract the quantity and quality of the respective
goods and/or services.
Accordingly, goods and services available in a given state of the world
can be categorized as follows. (Source: Ostrom, 2005, P. 25)
Subtractability of use
High
Excludability
of potential
beneficiaries
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
Low
High
Private goods
Toll goods
Low
Common-pool
resources
Public goods
6
c. Attributes of community: The third set of exogenous variables affecting
the structure of the action arena is the community and its attributes. It is
the least development conceptual unit in the IAD model. This
underdevelopment of the conceptual unity of community is
understandable given the academic background of Ostrom, who is a
political scientist focusing on rational-choice institutionalism. She has
specifically assigned the task of developing the conceptual unit of
community to sociologists, who “tend to be more interested in how
shared value system affect the ways human organize their relationships
with one another.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 50) Ostrom has simply outlined five
attributes of community, namely (Ostrom, 2005, P. 26-27)
i. “values (and norms) of behavior generally accepted in the
community;
ii. the level of common understanding that potential participants share
(or do not share) about the structure of particular types of action
arenas;
iii. the extent of homogeneity in the preferences of those living in a
community;
iv. the size and composition of the relevant community; and
v. the extent of inequality of basic assets among those affected.”
3. The interaction patterns and outcomes: Ostrom, as an institution analyst,
underlines that the accuracy of institutional analysts’ inference of
interaction patterns (i.e. institutions) and outcomes generated in a given
action arena depends on the empirical attributes of the exogenous
variables, the actors and the action situations in the IAD models at point.
For examples:
a. Market institution: Prefect competitive market
Types of goods
Private goods: high
excludability and
high subtractability
Rules in use
Community culture
Action arena
- Free entry,
- Equal position,
- Rational
maximize,
- Prefect
information,
- Price takers,
- Equal cost and
benefit for all,
- Market
equilibrium
- Norm & value of
profit-maximization
- Money as the
common language
- homogenous
preference
- infinite numbers of
participants
- One type of
actors: Homo
economicus
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
- Action situation:
Free transaction
of homogeneous
goods or service;
Non-recursive/
Recursive,
Interaction
pattern /
institution
Perfect
Competitive
Market
7
b. Tragedies of the common:
Types of goods
Rules in use
Community culture
Action arena
Common-pool
resources: Low
excludability and
high subtractability
- Free entry,
- Equal position,
- Rational
maximize,
- Incomplete
information,
- The sooner &
more the better,
- Costless benefit,
- Detrimental
effects on
resources, which
run out quickly
Zero-sum game:
You gain is my loss,
and my gain is your
loss
- The actors: The
self-interest
oriented
“common”
Interaction
pattern /
institution
Tragedy of the
Common
- Action situation:
Egocentric
appropriation of
common-pool
resources;
Non-recursive/
recursive
c. Application of tragedy of the common on the impact of
Direct-Subsidized Scheme (DSS) on the common-pool of schools and
schoolplaces in the public-school sector of Hong Kong.
d. Prisoner’s dilemma: Ostrom conceives prisoner’s dilemma model in
game theory as a particular case of common-pool resource (CPR)
situation. Instead of numerous participants, in prisoner dilemma model
there are only two participants. However, under the assumption of
rational calculation of maxcimizattion of bebefit, the situation would
only encourage defect and discourage cooperation. Hence, the results
of the prinsoners’ rational choices are the same as CPR situation, i.e.
tragedy of the common.
Prisoner B stays silent
(cooperates)
Prisoner B betrays
(defects)
Prisoner A stays silent
(cooperates)
Each serves 1 year
Prisoner A: 3 years
Prisoner B: goes free
Prisoner A betrays
(defects)
Prisoner A: goes free
Prisoner B: 3 years
Each serves 2 years
e. Application of prison dilemma to the drilling games in competitive
schoolplace allocation situation (曾榮光, 2006, P.138）
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
8
《表六》香港小學校方及家長的兩難
你
進行學能測驗操練
不進行學能測驗操練
進行學能測驗
操練
（A）
（C）
 雙方均承受操練帶來的惡果  我需承受操練帶來的惡果，
 雙方在 SSPA 的成績調節機制  我在 SSPA 的成績調節機制中取
中均沒有優勢
得優勢
不進行學能測
驗操練
（B）
（D）
 我可避免操練帶來的惡果，  雙方均可避免操練帶來的惡果，
 我在 SSPA 的成績調節機制中  雙方在 SSPA 的成績調節機制中
陷於劣勢
均沒有優勢
我
f. Evaluating outcomes: The final conceptual unit of the IAD framework
is the evaluating the outcomes being achieved. Ostrom proposes that
the outcomes can be evaluated under six criteria. These evaluative
criteria are:
i. Economic efficiency: “Economic efficiency is determined by the
magnitude of the change in the flow of net benefits associated with
an allocation or reallocation of resources.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 48)
ii. Fiscal equivalence: “There are two principal means of assessing
equity: (1) on the basis of the equality between individuals’
contributions to an effort and benefits they derive and (2) on the
differential abilities to pay. The concept of equity that underlies an
exchange economy holds that those who benefit from a service
should bear the burden of financing that service.” (Ostrom, 1999, P.
48)
iii. Redistributional equity: “Policy that redistribute resources to
poorer individuals are of considerable important. …The provision
of facilities that benefit particularly needy groups …may conflict
with the goal of achieving fiscal equivalence.” Ostrom, 1999, P. 48)
iv. Accountability: “In democratic polity, officials should be
accountable to citizens concerning the development and use of
public facilities and natural resources. Concern for accountability
need not conflict greatly with efficiency and equity goals.” (Ostrom,
1999, P. 48)
v. Conformance to general morality: This criterion refers to evaluate
the level of general level of general morality fostered by a
particular set of institutional arrangements.” And Ostrom has
suggested two of such general morality. One is honesty, which
concerns with issues such as “are those who are able to cheat and
go undetected able to obtain very high payoffs? Are those who
keep promises more likely to be rewarded and advanced in their
careers?” Another general morality is sustainability of reciprocal
interaction, i.e. “How do those who repeatedly interact within a set
of institutional arrangements learn to relate to one another over the
long term?” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 49)
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
9
Adaptability: Lastly, Ostrom underlines that “unless institutional
arrangements are able to respond to ever-changing environments,
the sustainability of resources and investment is likely to suffer.”
(Ostrom, 1999, P. 49)
Taken as a whole, Ostrom reminds us “trade-off are often necessary in
using oerformance criteria as a basis for selecting from alternative
institutional arrangements. It is particularly difficult to choose
between the goals of efficiency and redistributional equity.”
(Ostrom, 1999, P. 49)
v.
Taken together, Ostrom’s IAD framework can be summarized and presented
as follows.
D. Policy-Making Theory III: Multiple Stream Approach
1. The approach grows out of the Garbage Can Model, which is another
alternate policy-process model to the scientific-rational model in the
1970s. The primary assumption of the two models is that ambiguity
nature of the policy phenomena.
2. By ambiguity, it refers to “a state of having many way of thinking about
the same circumstances or phenomena.” (Feldman, 1989, quoted in
Zahariadis, 1999, p.74) The concept of ambiguity differs from the
concept of uncertainty, which is one of the constituent concept in
rational model, is that uncertainty can be reduced or even eliminated by
information and analysis of it, while ambiguity on policy phenomena
cannot be reduced by information but in some case may even enhance
it.
3. Another essential assumption of the approach is that policy issues or
even problems are not attended in an analytic-rational way as the
scientific-rational model assumes. The garbage-can and multiplestream models stress that the logic of approaching policy issue is
temporal sorting and not rational choice.
“Who pays attention to what and when is critical. Time is a unique,
scarce resource. Because the primary concern of decision-makers …is
to manage time effectively rather than manage tasks. It is reasonable to
pursue a lens (approach) that accords significance to time rather than to
rationality.” (Zahariadis, 1999, p.74)
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
10
4. John Kingdon’s three streams in policy making
1. Problem: It refers to the conditions or mechanism on which policy
makers identify, define and take action on a policy problem. They
include
a. Indicators
b. Dramatic events or crisis
c. Feedback of existing programs
2. Policy: It refers to the conditions spawned from the policy issues or
phenomena themselves. They include
a. Policy ideas generated from policy communities
b. The prospect of technical feasibility and value acceptability of the
policy itself
3. Politics: It refers to the conditions grow out of the political
environment. They include
a. National mood
b. Legislative and executive turnover
5. The conception of the coupling of the streams and the formation of
“policy window”. Kingdon signifies that when the three streams are
joined together at critical moments in time, they will constitute a
“policy window”. As a “policy window” opens, it indicates that the
policy issue will elevate into a policy agenda and sequent
policy-making steps will materialized.
6. The network of subsystem model
This model characterizes that policy actors in policy making process
are not act separately and independently. They will form networks
and communities on the base of common policy focus, shared policy
stance, related vested policy interest. …………..
G. Policy–making Theory IV: Persuasive and Argumentative Perspective
In this perspective, policy making is construed as language game of
persuasion and argumentation. Hence, policy-making studies are analyses
of how different stalker-holder groups frame, organize, and possibly win the
argumentation in a policy debate.
1. Formal argument model in policy analysis
a. Constituents in formal argument model (William Dunn)
i. Claim
ii. Information
iii. Warrant
iv. Backing
iv. Qualifier
v. Rebuttal
b. Types of argumentative claims
i. Designative claims on facts
ii. Evaluative claims on values
iii. Advocative claims on actions
2. Interpretive approach to policy argument
a. Deep description of arguments of different interpretive communities
b. Constituents of the architecture of argumentation and the textuality
of argumentative/persuasive texts
i. Genre
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
11
ii. Frame
iii. Rhetoric
iv. Narrative
H. The Conception of Genre in Critical Discourse Analysis:
1. Concept of genre
a. “A genre is a group of texts that share specific discursive features.”
(Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.163).
b. Genre means “distinctions within convention …between text types.”
(Fairclough, 1995, p. 13) More specifically, Fairclough defines
“genre as socially ratified way of using language in connection with a
particular type of social activities,” (Fairclough, 1997, p. 14) e.g.
interview, narrative, exposition, argumentation, persuasion.
c. Accordingly policy text and/or discourse can mainly be construed as
argumentative and/or persuasive genre of text and/or discourse.
d. According to Richard Edwards and his associates persuasive text
may take the following forms
i. Deliberative genre: It refers to policy discourse which is
“associate with policy and its future orientated and speculative.”
(Edwards et al., 2004, p.19) For example, in documents relating
to recent education reform, they commonly refer to the future of
global-informational economy and network society and how
education reform should prepare students to fit into new species
of flexible and workers and/or networkers.
ii. Forensic genre: It refers to policy discourse which “focuses on
past events and attempt to provide an account that is taken to be
true.” (ibid) For example, the rhetoric of presenting data of
declining standards in comparative educational research and
statistics of falling competitiveness of national economy in global
market can be construed as a kind of forensic genre.
iii. Epideictic genre: It refers to policy discourse which focuses on
the contemporary. However, in epideictic genre one can usually
find “the notion of ‘naming and shaming’, publicly denouncing
organizations and individuals who fail to meet the quality
standards and inspection criteria to which they are subject.” (ibid)
For example, blaming on teachers, naming negative value-added
schools, and shaming failing schools.
I. Conception of Frame in Policy Studies
1. Law and Rein define frame “as a way of representing knowledge, and
as the reliance on (and development of) interpretative schemas that
bound and order a chaotic situation, facilitate interpretation and provide
a guide for doing and acting.” (Law and Rein, 2003, p.173)
2. The concept of frame finds its scholarly resonance in the
well-documented concept of “definition of situation” in symbolic
interactionism. As Law and Rein quote in length of Goffman’s exposition
“I assume that when individuals attend to any current situation, they
face the question: ‘What is going on here?’ Whether asked explicitly, as
in times of confusion and doubt, or tacitly, during occasions of usual
certitude, the question is put and the answer to it is presumed by the
way the individual then proceeds to get on with the affairs at hand.”
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
12
(Quoted in Law & Rein, p. 175)
3. The functions of frames in policy argumentation are to (Law & Rein, p.
174)
a. “note a special type of story that focuses attention”
b. “provide stability and structure by narrating a problem-centred
discourse as evolves over time,
c. “define the boundary between evidence and noise”,
d. “wed fact and value into belief about how to act”
4. Types of policy frame
a. Rhetoric frame
b. Action frame
i. Policy action frame: It refers to “the frame an institutional actor
uses to construct the problem of a specific policy situation.
ii. Institutional action frame: It indicates the frame held by institutions.
This signifies that as agents of thought and action, institutions
possess characteristics point of view, prevailing system of beliefs,
category scheme, images, routines and styles of argument and
action, all of which inform their action frames.” (Schon & Rein,
1994, p.33)
J. Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies
1. Meanings of rhetoric: Rhetoric has a long history in Western literary as
well as philosophical traditions. It can be traced back to Aristotle.
a. Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the ability to see, in any given case, the
available means of persuasion.” (Aristotle, 1991, quoted in Gill &
Whedbee, 1997, p. 155)
b. Wharley defines it as “the findings of suitable arguments to prove a
given point, and the skillful arrangement of them.” (Whately, 1963,
quoted in Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p. 155)
c. A dictionary definition of rhetoric is that it is “the art of using
language so as to persuade or influence others.” (Edwards et al.
2004, p.3) Hence, Rhetorical analysis involves the study of the ways
in which we attempt to persuade or influence in our discursive,
textual and gestural practices. (Edwards et al., 2004, p.13) Hence,
“part of the job of the rhetoric analyst is to determine how
constructions of ‘the real’ are made persuasive” (Simon, 1990;
quoted in Edwards et al., 2004, p. 13) “Here the question is not so
much about whether reality matches rhetoric or not, but which
fabrications of the real are more persuasive and why.” (Edwards, et
al., 2004, p.13)
As for the case of educational discourse, rhetoric analysis aims to
explore and reveal “hidden rhetoric aspect to educational
discourse.” (Edwards et al., 2004, p. 9)
2. Constituents of rhetoric performance: It has been identified by analysts
of rhetoric that there are several essential constituents for a rhetoric
performance, i.e. to make rhetoric persuasive. They are
a. Context: Rhetoric by definition is pragmatic in nature, i.e. it
“responds to or interacts with societal issues or problems, and it
produces some action upon or change in the world.” (Gill &
Whedbee, 1997, p.161). Therefore, in order to be comprehended
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
13
b.
c.
e.
f.
g.
h.
and/or critically analyzed the rhetoric in a policy text, it must be set
against the context (temporal, socio-cultural and/or pragmatic
contexts), in which it is derived.
Exigence: It refers to the way the issue and/or problem to be
addressed in the rhetoric of a policy text are defined and formulated.
For example, in recent education reforms, the most commonly used
exigencies are either the decline of standards of students and school
leavers or the threat of losing national competitiveness in global
economic competitions.
Audience: It signifies the actual or figurative audience, whom the
rhetoric of a policy text is supposed to address or appeal to. For
example, in recent education-reform documents, the audiences to
be addressed are usually employers and/or parents rather than
teachers and education professions. It indicates a sense of
distrustfulness to professionals, who usually been depicted as the
sourced of falling standard in education and/or falling
competitiveness in national economy. Even within the audience of
parents, they has been defined as consumers striving for individual
gains rather than as citizens constituting common will and good for
the society as a whole.
Rhetor credibility: It indicates the authorities of the speakers or
writers of the texts, and/or the authorities that the rhetoric of a policy
documents try to appealed to. For example, appeal to concepts as
well as authorities of neo-liberal economists, such as Milton
Friedman, in policy texts of education reform of liberalization is one
of the most common practices in recent education reforms.
Absence: It has been underlined that one of the essential
components in analyzing rhetoric is “what is absent from or silenced
by the text.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.169).
Metaphor: “The essence of metaphor is understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” (Lakoff and
Johnson, 1980; quoted in Edwards, 2004, p.25) In metaphoric
analysis, it is claimed that “human understanding is a petaphoric
process; the mind grasps an unfamiliar idea only by comparison to
or in terms of something already known. Thus the metaphoric
language in a text presents a particular view of reality by structuring
the understanding of one idea in terms of something previously
understood.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.173)
For example, in the rhetoric of the neo-liberalism the education
system is metaphorically prescribed as a market mechanism, a
school as a input-output factory, students as materials to be
processed and added on value, parents as choosing consumers,
school principals as CEO, etc.
Iconicity: “Iconicity functions in a way that is similar to metaphor,
iconicity ‘rests on the intuitive recognition of similarities one field of
reference (the form of language) and another.’” (Gill & Whedbee,
1997, p.174) For example, HK school like to use celebrity graduates
as rhetoric to indicate the quality of the school.
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
14
K. Conception of Narrative in Policy Studies
1. Conception of narrative in policy study/
a. Narrative can be defined as literal representation which takes the
form of a storyline, i.e. with clear beginning, development, and end.
b. It refers to the ‘storyline’ that each interpretive community constructs,
follows and put fore in a policy argumentation. It is a representation
schema a interpretive community used to define their situation in the
policy reality and organize their arguments.
2. The structure of narrative: Numbers of scholars have tried to summarize
the structure of a narrative. Here Hyden White’s formulation will be
adopted
a. Central subject: The narrator or the main character in the story. In
the case of policy argumentation, the central subject is a particular
interpretive community.
b. Plot:
i. It refers to the sequence of events selectively organized into a
narrative by an interpretive community in the policy
argumentation.
ii. It represents “a structure of relationships by which the events
contained in the account are endowed with a meaning by being
identified as parts of an integrated whole” (P.9)
iii. “The plot of a narrative imposes a meaning on the events that
make up its story level by revealing at the end a structure that
was immanent in the events all along.” (p.20)
c. Closure:
i. It refers to the resolution, evaluation and even moral meaning
elicited from the precedent sequence of events, i.e. plots.
ii. As White indicates “a proper historical narrative … achieves
narrative fullness by explicitly invoking the idea of a social
system to serve as a fixed reference point by which the flow of
ephemeral events can be endowed with specifically moral
meaning. … (Hence), the chronicle must approach the form of an
allegory, moral or analogical as the case may be, in order to
achieve both narrativity and historicality.” (p. 22)
iii. As in the case of policy narrative, the closure performs the
function of resolving the policy alternatives and/or conflicts
evaluating the policy choices, and attributing moral meanings to
the policy conclusion. But most importantly these resolution,
evaluation and attribution are all constructed according to the
worldview and/or vested interest of the interpretive community
concerned.
- Authority: Narratives will usually be present in authoritative
manner as if they are the establishment of facts, order and even
truth.
3. Narrative identity and decision-making by rule following
By relating James March’s institutionist thesis of decision-making by
rule following with the interpretive approach to narrative identity of
interpretive communities
a. The conception of interpretive community can be construed as a
community with a particular narrative identity on a policy issue
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
15
b. As a result members of an interpretive community will follow the
logic of appropriateness in making decision on policy issue
c. Hence, they are most unlikely to approach the policy decision at
hand in self-interest calculation orientation but to base the decision
on the narrative identity of the interpretive community to which they
have identified.
W.K. Tsang
Policy Studies in Education
16