Situating a Critical Review of Impact Evaluations Within the Political Economy of Global Education Reform: Definition and Method

  • D. Brent EdwardsJr.


This chapter addresses issues of definition and method. The first section takes on the challenge of defining what it means to conduct a critical review of impact evaluations within the political economy of global education reform. As discussed, one must go beyond a critical evaluation of the findings of impact evaluations and beyond a critical appraisal of the production of impact evaluations to also consider the role that impact evaluations play, once produced, in the field of global education policy. Considering this role means examining their influence at the level of policymaking processes, organizational agendas, personal careers, and discursive context, among others. The latter sections of this chapter suggest methods that can be used to put this approach to critical review into practice. The specifics of how these methods were employed in the policy case from El Salvador (the focus of Chaps.  4,  5, and  6) are also detailed.


Knowledge production Impact evaluation Political economy Global education policy Critical review Methods 


  1. Ball, S. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the “competition state”. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, S. (2010). New voices, new knowledge and the new politics of education research: The gathering of a perfect storm? European Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryk, A. (1981). Disciplined inquiry or policy argument? Harvard Educational Review, 51(4), 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards, D. B., Jr. (2012a). Researching international processes of education policy formation: Conceptual and methodological consideration. Research in Comparative International Education, 7(2), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, D. B., Jr. (2012b). The approach of the World Bank to participation in development and education governance: Trajectories, frameworks, results. In C. Collins & A. Wiseman (Eds.), Education strategy in the developing world: Revising the World Bank’s education policy (pp. 249–273). Bingley, UK: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edwards, D. B., Jr. (2013a). International processes of education policy formation: An analytic framework and the case of Plan 2021 in El Salvador. Comparative Education Review, 57(1), 22–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, D. B., Jr. (2013b). The development of global education policy: A case study of the origins and evolution of El Salvador’s EDUCO program. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, D. B., Jr. (2018). The trajectory of global education policy: Community-based management in El Salvador and the global reform agenda. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, D. B., Jr., & DeMatthews, D. (2014). Historical trends in educational decentralization in the United States and developing countries: A periodization and comparison in the post-WWII context, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(40), 1–36.
  10. Edwards, D. B., Jr., & Klees, S. (2012). Participation in international development and education governance. In A. Verger, M. Novelli, & H. Kosar-Altinyelken (Eds.), Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues and programmes (pp. 55–77). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, D. B., Jr., Victoria, J., & Martin, P. (2015). The geometry of policy implementation: Lessons from the political economy of three education reforms in El Salvador during 1990–2005. International Journal of Educational Development, 44, 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldie, D., Linick, M., Jabbar, H., & Lubienski, C. (2014). Using bibliometric and social media analyses to explore the “echo chamber” hypothesis. Educational Policy, 28(2), 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jessop, B. (2001). Institutional re(turns) and the strategic-relational approach. Environment and Planning A, 33, 1213–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klees, S., & Edwards, D. B., Jr. (2014). Knowledge production and technologies of governance. In T. Fenwick, E. Mangez, & J. Ozga (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2014: Governing knowledge: Comparison, knowledge-based technologies and expertise in the regulation of education (pp. 31–43). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Klees, S., & Wells, S. (1983). Economic evaluation of education: A critical analysis in the context of applications to educational reform in El Salvador. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5(3), 327–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2014). The politics of research, production, promotion, and utilization in education policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lubienski, C., Weitzel, P., & Lubienski, S. T. (2009). Is there a “consensus” on school choice and achievement? Advocacy research and the emerging political economy of knowledge production. Educational Policy, 23(1), 161–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Nambissan, G., & Ball, S. (2010). Advocacy networks, choice and private schooling for the poor in India. Global Networks, 10(3), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robertson, S., & Dale, R. (2009). The World Bank, the IMF, and the possibilities of critical education. In M. Apple, W. Au, & L. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of critical education (pp. 23–35). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Samoff, J. (1993). The reconstruction of schooling in Africa. Comparative Education Review, 37(2), 181–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Samoff, J. (2012). “Research shows that …”: Creating the knowledge environment for learning for all. In S. Klees, J. Samoff, & N. Stromquist (Eds.), The World Bank and education: Critiques and alternatives (pp. 143–157). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. USAID. (n.d.). Development experience clearinghouse. Retrieved from
  25. Verger, A. (2012). Framing and selling global education policy: The promotion of PPPs in education in low-income countries. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Water, G. (1998). Critical evaluation for education reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6(20), 1–38.Google Scholar
  27. Yin, R. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Brent EdwardsJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations