Analysing Policy as Discourse: Methodological Advances in Policy Analysis

Chapter
Part of the Methodos Series book series (METH, volume 9)

Abstract

New approaches to policy analysis suggest that policy is the result of complex negotiations and contestations that take place to a significant extent within language and discourse/s. This chapter provides an account of the ways in which policy has come to be understood as discourse, and what this means for how (and why) policy is subjected to analysis. The main aim of the chapter is to introduce the ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ framework for analysing policy (Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing Policy: What’s the problem represented to be). This framework, developed by Carol Bacchi, enables analysts to focus on how problems are represented in policy. The usefulness of Bacchi’s approach is explored through examples of research on policies relating to educational inequalities and indigenous communities. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the role of policy analysis – do we undertake policy analysis in order to solve or address problems or in order to participate in struggles over meaning?

Keywords

Policy Statement Child Sexual Abuse Education Policy Northern Territory Policy Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andersen, N. (2003). Discursive analytical strategies: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, policy and politics. The construction of policy problems. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacchi, C. (2005). Discourse, discourse everywhere: Subject ‘agency’ in feminist discourse methodology. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 13(3), 198–209.Google Scholar
  5. Bacchi, C. (2008). The ethics of problem representation: Widening the scope of ethical debate. Policy and Society, 25(2), 3–22.Google Scholar
  6. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policymaking in education: Explorations in policy sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, S. J. (2006). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Blackmore, J., & Lauder, H. (2005). Researching policy. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 97–104). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Brough, M., (Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs). (2007, June 21). National emergency response to protect children in the NT. Media Release. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/minister3.nsf/content/emergency_21june07.htm [No longer accessible].
  11. Colebatch, H. K. (Ed.). (2006). Beyond the policy cycle: The policy process in Australia. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse and text: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Fawcett, B., Goodwin, S., Meagher, G., & Phillips, R. (2010). Social policy for social change. Melbourne, VIC: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Fenna, A. (2004). Australian public policy (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, M. (1984). The use of pleasure. The history of sexuality (Vol. 2). (R. Hurley, Trans.). London: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  18. Graham, L. (2005, November 27–December 1). Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault. Australian Association for Research in Education 2005 Annual Conference, Sydney, NSW. Retrieved August 2009, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2689/1/2689.pdf
  19. Marston, G. (2004). Social policy and discourse analysis: Policy change in public housing. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. McInerney, P. (2008). The ethics of problem representation in public education policy: From educational disadvantage to individual deficits, Policy and Society, 26(3), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individual psychology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Parker, I. (2002). Critical discursive psychology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shaw, S. (2010). Reaching the parts that other theories and methods can’t reach: How and why a policy-as-discourse approach can inform health-related policy. Health, 14(2), 196–212.Google Scholar
  24. Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), 226–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor, S. (1997). Critical policy analysis: Exploring contexts, texts and consequences. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Torgenson, D. (1986). Between knowledge and politics: Three faces of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 19, 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations