The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis By: Sarah Diem

The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis

By: Sarah Diem, Michelle D. Young, Anjalé D. Welton, Katherine Cumings Mansfield, and Pei-

Ling Lee

Diem, S., Young, M.D., Welton, A.D., Mansfield, K.C., Lee, P.L. (2014). The intellectual

landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,

27(9), 1068-1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.916007

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education on 18 August 2014, available

online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09518398.2014.916007.

authorized without written permission from Taylor & Francis. This version of the

document is not the version of record. ***

Abstract:

What counts as critical policy analysis in education? Over the past 30 years, a tightening of

national educational policies can be seen in the USA and across the globe. Over this same period

of time, a growing number of educational policy scholars, dissatisfied with traditional

frameworks, have used critical frameworks in their analyses. Their critical educational policy

work has contributed to a unique intellectual landscape within education: critical policy analysis.

This article presents a qualitative exploration of the critical policy analysis approach to

educational policy studies. Participants included scholars known to utilize critical theoretical

frameworks and methods in their research. Through a historical approach that makes use of oral

history interviews with educational policy, we developed an understanding of the critical

approach to policy studies, its appeal among critical education policy scholars, and the rationales

driving its use.

Keywords: critical policy analysis | critical theories | education policy | policy studies |

qualitative methods

Article:

Policy studies is often characterized as a theoretically narrow field, relying first and foremost

upon functionalist, rational, and scientific models (Brewer, 2008; Marshall, 1997;

Scheurich, 1994; Young, 1999). As part of the policy studies field, educational policy research

has tended to operate within a traditionalistic (i.e. positivist) paradigm and, over time, has

developed a group of taken-for-granted assumptions, norms, and traditions that institutionalize

conventional ontological, epistemological, and methodological traditions. The result is a

circumscribed set of research findings, garnered through a restricted grouping of theory and

method (Young, 1999).

Educational policy studies draws from the broader field of policy studies as well as from the

traditions of educational research, political science, and public administration, each of which is

strongly influenced by positivism and to a lesser degree post-positivism (Levinson, Sutton, &

Winstead, 2009; Nagel, 1984). The paradigm through which most policy studies operate involves

timeworn assumptions, norms, and traditions, institutionalized and accepted by most researchers

as the appropriate “value-free” way to undertake educational policy research (Marshall, 1997;

Scheurich, 1994; Stanfield, 1993; Young, 1999). According to Levinson et al. (2009), “in this

approach there is effectively no social theory of policy” (p. 768). Indeed, the majority of

educational policy analysts prefer linear processes that focus on clearly defined problems and

measureable facts (Blackmore, 1997; Fischer, 2003; Marshall, 1999; Rochefort & Cobb, 1994).

A narrow vision was not what the field’s founder, Harold Lasswell, had in mind for the policy

studies field (Fischer, 2003). Rather, Lasswell envisioned policy analysis as a means for

exploring policy problems in all their complexity. His vision included constructing policy

analysis as a multidisciplinary approach with an explicitly normative orientation (Fischer, 2003).

What some scholars are calling “critical policy analysis” comes closer to Lasswell’s 50-year-old

ideal of doing policy work while acknowledging context, group values, and the contestable

nature of problem definition, research findings, and arguments for solutions (Blackmore, 1997;

Fischer, 2003; Marshall, 1999; Rochefort & Cobb, 1994; Young, 1999).

Since the 1980s, a growing number of policy researchers have shifted from traditional

approaches and used critical frameworks to interrogate both the beliefs and practices associated

with traditional work as well as the policies, insights, and recommendations that result from such

work (McDonnell, 2009). For example, Ball (1991, 1993, 1994) and Stone (2002) problematized

the rational approach associated with traditional policy research, breaking new ground for critical

policy scholars. Similarly, Rist (1994) critiqued the traditional view of policy-making as a

deliberate process, undertaken by a known and bounded set of actors, who use research and

reason to ensure the best possible policy outcomes. Likewise, deLeon and Vogenback (2007)

described the traditional analytic toolkit in policy research as limiting, noting the tendency to

rely on the same framework and approaches for all problems under investigation rather than

choosing epistemologies and approaches that might be more appropriate for analyzing the

problem in question.

Over this same period of time, education has risen to an issue of national importance in many

countries. Across the globe, we have seen a tightening of control on students, educators,

administrators, and the schooling process in general through national-level educational policies.

Although one could argue that these two trends are completely unrelated, it is interesting that as

power and control in education became increasingly consolidated, a growing number of

educational policy scholars, dissatisfied with traditional frameworks, began using critical

frameworks in their analyses.

It is our contention that developments in critical educational policy analysis both are a response

to conditions in education and signal an important shift in the field. Yet limited attention has

been invested in understanding the nature of this shift and, more importantly, in articulating what

counts as critical educational policy analysis and what motivates scholars to engage in critical

policy work. The research shared in this article explored the critical policy analysis approach as

practiced within the educational policy field, giving particular attention to understanding the

purposes of critical policy analysis, why people are drawn to this kind of work, and what

perspectives inform their work.

Comparing frames: traditional and critical

A variety of theoretical perspectives and frameworks are available to educational policy

researchers, both traditional and non-traditional. These are drawn from a variety of disciplines,

and include but are not limited to cultural perspectives (Kingdon, 1995), critical-race

perspectives (Aleman, 2007; Atwood, 2011; Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995;

Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lopez, 2003), critical policy

sociology (Gale, 2001), engagement theory (Valenzuela & López, 2011), feminist perspectives

(Ferguson, 1984; Marshall, 1997; Marshall & Young, 2006), interest group theory

(Peterson, 1970; Wilson, 1980), neo-institutionalism (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991), network

theories (Ball & Junemann, 2012; Fenwick, 2010; Stanton-Salazar, 2001), path dependence

(Pierson, 2004), post-structural policy archeology (Scheurich, 1994), policy reconstruction

(Forester, 1993), rational choice (Weimer, 1995), and queer theories (Capper, 1999;

Lugg, 2003), among others. The theoretical perspective a researcher employs will influence his

or her research. It will, for example, influence “the way one identifies and describes policy

problems, the way one researches the problem, the policy options one considers, the approach

one takes to policy implementation, and the approach taken for policy evaluation” (Young, 1999,

p. 275).

Because we are examining an approach to policy analysis that we argue differs from traditional

approaches and because we are referring to this alternative approach as critical policy analysis,

some guidance in terms of meaning is in order. In the remainder of this section, we sketch out the

conceptual terrain of critical policy analysis and introduce some of the key ideas that have come

to be associated with this line of research. However, this synthesis of literature of traditional and

critical approaches to policy analysis is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it is provided to

draw attention to the general contours of traditional and critical approaches, as we have come to

understand them, as a way of orienting the reader to the focus of our research project.

Finally, while critical policy analysis makes use of many perspectives that fall under the

umbrella of critical theory, from social constructionism, and post-structuralism, to post-

modernism (Fischer, 2003; Marshall, 1999; Rochefort & Cobb, 1994), our comparison focuses

on concerns expressed primarily by critical theorists. This choice is based on our observation that

the majority of critical policy work reflects this theoretical domain. Even limiting our

comparison in this manner, however, is not straightforward. As Kincheloe and McLaren (2005)

point out, “there are many critical theories not just one, the critical tradition is always changing

and evolving, and critical theory attempts to avoid too much specificity since there is room for

disagreement among critical theorists” (p. 89). Indeed, the work of most critical researchers blurs

rather than embraces strong theoretical lines.

The traditional approach to educational policy studies

Traditional approaches to educational policy studies exhibit a number of common assumptions.

We have identified four that we believe reflect the key tenets of mainstream policy analysis.

First, traditional policy researchers who are concerned with planning, adoption, implementation,

examination, and/or evaluating educational changes or reforms tend to view change or reform as

a deliberate process that can be planned and managed (Rist, 1994). Depending on the perspective

of the researcher, this process may be viewed on a continuum between straightforward and

muddled (Adams, 1991; Moorhead & Griffin, 1992). Thus, planned change or reform may be

viewed as more or less sequential, incremental, and/or political, but it is nonetheless planable and

manageable (assuming the planners and implementers are skilled and competent). Indeed, policy

analysis is typically taught and learned as a process made up of a series of steps, including

problem definition, goal setting, policy alternative identification, policy selection,

implementation, and evaluation (Weimer & Vining, 2011). Furthermore, traditional research on

planned change assumes strategies are unequivocal and can be broadly implemented, paying

little attention to how policy arenas are multidimensional and interconnected (Honig, 2006).

A second assumption is that preferences or goals drive action (Becker, 1986; Elster, 1986). In

fact, goal-driven behavior is often viewed as the substance of rationality, wherein an individual

rationally weighs the costs, benefits, and subsequent outcomes of a strategy. According to

Weimer and Vining (2011), the word analysis is derived from a Greek word meaning “to break

down into component parts” (p. 343). Based on this premise, it is assumed that one can explain

and predict behavior within institutions with a fair amount of confidence (Ostrum, 1999).

A third assumption is that the knowledge necessary for identifying and deciding between policy

solutions and planning for implementation and evaluation is obtainable, cumulative, and capable

of being expressed to others (Dunn, 1994). This knowledge, which is obtained primarily through

data collection, is assumed to adequately reflect reality and to provide useful and valid (again,

assuming the researcher is skilled and competent) information upon which one can make

decisions regarding policy and practice (Adams, 1991; Dunn, 1994; Nagel, 1984). The data used

for policy analysis can be usefully divided into three broad categories: existing data-sets,

documents, and fieldwork. Similarly, a fourth assumption is that policies, policy alternatives, and

practices can be adequately evaluated and that based on these evaluations, problems can be

identified and ameliorated (Adams, 1991; Patton, 1990; Weimer & Vining, 2011). Although we

realize this is a significant oversimplification, in sum, the traditional approach to policy studies is

typically viewed as a neutral scientific approach, carried out by rational and expert researchers

who use theory-supported models that facilitate responsive and effective change.

These four assumptions are identifiable in policy research theories and approaches such as

systems theory and analysis, structural analysis, cost-benefit analysis, information technology

approaches, decision theory, technicist models, and political models (Adams, 1991;

Becker, 1986; deLeon & Vogenback, 2007; Dunn, 1994; Levin, 1988; McDonnell, 2009;

Weimer & Vining, 2011). Furthermore, vestiges of these assumptions are embedded in many

other approaches to research and analysis (Ball, 1997; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005;

Scheurich, 1994). Although the approaches vary in design and application, they tend to support

the view that empirical research can access the information needed to understand, design, plan,

problem solve, and implement effective educational policies and practices.

The critical approach to educational policy studies

The critical frame has been used in the field of education to study a number of issues. Critical

ethnographers, for example, have explored schools as locations of social and cultural

reproduction as well as individual and group responses to such reproduction (e.g. resistance and

accommodation) (Anderson, 1989). Other researchers have used critical frameworks to study

charter schools (Shaker & Heilman, 2008), tracking (Sirotnik & Oakes, 1986), social

reproduction (Anyon, 1980; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Dumas & Anyon, 2006), character

education (Winton, 2010), student resistance to the dominant school culture (Apple, 1982;

Willis, 1977), early childhood education (Ackerman, 2006), federal educational policy

(Brewer, 2014; Smith, Miller-Kahn, Heinecke, & Jarvis, 2004), and language education

(Hamann, 2003), among other topics.

Within the educational policy realm scholars have studied, critiqued, and offered alternative

strategies for examining a variety of educational policy issues (e.g. Brewer, 2014; Lipman, 2004;

Mosen-Lowe, Vidovich, & Chapman, 2009; Young, 1999), and they have offered a variety of

new perspectives and approaches. A few examples include Marshall (1997) and Taylor’s (1997)

use of discourse theory to critically examine educational policy and its impact, Ball and

Junemann’s (2012) examination of new philanthropies and policy networks in educational

policy-making, and Brewer’s (2008, 2014) examination of federal policy histories and

microhistories.

When employed in educational policy studies, critical approaches tend to focus around five

fundamental concerns. First, attention is often given to the difference between policy rhetoric

and practiced reality. Some of this work involves an interrogation of the policy process while

other scholarship focuses on rhetorical devices and the symbolic nature of educational policy

(Edelman, 1971; Fischer, 2003; Moses & Gair, 2004; Smith et al., 2004; Winton, 2013). Still

other researchers are more concerned with the space between policy development and

implementation (Ball, 1998; Honig, 2006; Malen, Croninger, Muncey, & Redmond-

Jones, 2002). The second concern focuses on the policy, its roots, and its development. Scholars

are interested in understanding how it emerged, what problems it was intended to solve, how it

changed and developed over time, and its role in reinforcing the dominant culture (Burke, 2004;

Chartier, 1988; Green, 1999). Here scholars seek historical and contextual clues that might help

them gain a better understanding of policy changes, conditions, and results (Brewer, 2008, 2014).

Scholars are also interested in understanding the policy tools and processes that facilitated policy

institutionalization and/or internalization. A third concern is with the distribution of power,

resources, and knowledge (Anyon, 1980; Foucault, 1972; Levinson et al., 2009) and the creation

of “winners” and “losers.” Here the unit of analysis may be the policy system itself, the site of

implementation, or who gets what, when, and how (Dumas & Anyon, 2006; Forester, 1993;

Schneider & Ingram, 1993). Social stratification, a fourth and related concern, focuses on the

broader effect a given policy has on relationships of inequality and privilege (Bernal, 2005;

McLaren & Giarelli, 1995; Riddell, 2005). Researchers ask questions such as: Does policy X

somehow reinforce or reproduce social injustices and inequalities? The work of critical theorists

like Bourdieu (1991) holds that schools are institutions that reproduce inequalities. Finally, many

critical policy scholars are interested in members of non-dominant groups who resist processes

of domination and oppression (Anderson, 1989; Gillborn, 2005; McLaren & Giarelli, 1995) and

who engage in activism and use of participatory methods to employ agency within schools

(Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ginwright, Noguera, & Cammarota, 2006; Valenzuela &

López, 2011). Although the approaches critical policy scholars take vary in design and

application, these five concerns are reflected in a great deal of critical policy work.

Critical theories facilitate the exploration of policy roots and processes; how policies presented

as reality are often political rhetoric; how knowledge, power, and resources are distributed

inequitably; how educational programs and policies, regardless of intent, reproduce stratified

social relations; how schools institutionalize those with whom they come into contact; and how

individuals react (e.g. resistance or acquiescence) to such social and institutional forces.

Although a framework’s features may never be reflected on, embraced by, nor even known to a

researcher (Young, 1999), and while researchers “may be guided by unpostulated and unlabeled

assumptions about what constitutes fact par excellence and how people make sense out of the

disparate events of their social world” (Popkewitz, 1984, p. 37), frameworks are crucial in giving

meaning to human activity, including that of policy studies.

Two additional similarities mark the work of critical educational policy scholars. First, critical

policy researchers tend to pay significant attention to the complex systems and environments in

which policy is made and implemented. For example, Levinson et al. (2009) write, “we

understand policy as a complex, ongoing social practice of normative cultural production

constituted by diverse actors across diverse contexts” (p. 770). Recognizing that the creation of

policy is “an extremely complex, often contradictory process,” critical policy researchers have

sought to capture the full complexity of policy contexts and the evolution of policy over time

(Weaver-Hightower, 2008, p. 153). Second, critical policy researchers are more likely to use

qualitative research approaches than quantitative approaches in their work (deLeon &

Vogenback, 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). In particular, discourse analysis has been

increasingly used by critical educational policy scholars (Bacchi, 2000; Ball, 1991;

Marshall, 2000; Mosen-Lowe et al., 2009; Taylor, 1997). Other approaches include critical

policy ethnography, which examines questions that are often ignored or silenced by traditional

strategies and enables the researcher to explore the practices that create, enable, and sustain

educational policy (Anderson, 1989), historical approaches (Brewer, 2008; Gale, 2001), and

policy archeology, which places and interrogates educational policy within several arenas

(Scheurich, 1994).

As the above review of literature reveals, critical approaches to policy research are increasingly

used within the education field and there are distinctive patterns of use. Beyond that, however,

we know very little about this area of scholarship and the researchers who engage in it. For

example, there appears to be little information as to why we have seen increased interest in this

kind of work over time, why educational policy scholars pursue this type of scholarship, how it

connects to their ideological perspectives, what theories and methods they consider to be

appropriate and/or essential to critical policy analyses, particularly when used within the field of

education, and how it might be connected to policy developments within the field of education.

The research project described in this text was designed with these issues in mind, giving

particular attention to understanding the purposes of critical policy analysis, why people are

drawn to this kind of work, and what perspectives inform their work.

Methods

Understanding critical policy analysis as it is practiced in the field of education is at the heart of

our work. In this exploratory study, we sought to develop a stronger understanding of the

purposes of critical policy analysis, why researchers are drawn to this kind of work, what factors

and/or experiences influenced their work, and what perspectives inform their work. Gilliland and

McKemmish (2004) described efforts like ours as exploring “intellectual landscapes” (p. 175).

To be clear, our study is not an example of critical policy analysis; rather, it is an exploration of

the work and intentions of critical policy analysts. Given the historical and contextual nature of

our research interests, we engaged in a historical, qualitative approach for data collection and

employed a naturalistic, post-positivist perspective in our analysis.

In-depth, oral history interviews were conducted with 19 participants identified as critical policy

scholars. Participants were purposefully selected based upon a determination that their published

work included policy analyses that utilized critical theoretical frameworks. A purposive sample

is a sample selected in a deliberative and non-random fashion in order to achieve a certain goal.

In this project, our purpose was to better understand critical policy analysis, including how and

why it is done (Patton, 1990). As such, our research team reviewed scholarship reflecting our

understanding of CPA as described in the above section, The Critical Approach to Educational

Policy Studies, and consciously developed a list of individuals who engaged in this kind of work,

noting the theoretical frameworks they used in their analyses. We then charted the length and

depth of their engagement in critical policy research, assuming that those with more robust

engagement would have knowledge and experience that would assist us in answering our

research questions.

The final sample of scholars we interviewed included 13 females and 6 males who ranged in

experience from just beginning their academic careers to those that have been in the field for

over 30 years. The majority of participants were scholars from the USA as we were particularly

interested in how the field is emerging within the country. Each scholar had an identifiable line

of critical policy scholarship. Additionally, our sample included scholars who used one or more

of the following critical frameworks in their analyses: critical theory, critical feminism, critical

race theory, critical realism, queer theory, post-structuralism, and feminist post-structuralism.

The purposive nature of the sampling in this study as well as the sample size, however, precludes

applying the findings to all critical policy scholars. As such, this research is exploratory in nature

and future efforts must be undertaken to deepen our understanding of critical approaches to

educational policy analysis.

The oral history interview approach focuses on “the meanings that events hold for those that

lived through them” (McMahan & Rogers, 1994 in Chase, 2008, p. 59). As a team, we designed

an oral history interview protocol that explored scholars’ personal, educational and career

development, intellectual education, motivations behind conducting critical policy analysis,

descriptions of how they “do” this kind of work, and rationales for why it is important. Our focus

on experiential knowledge is key because we also hoped to understand whether critical policy

scholars have always thought of their work as critical policy analysis, what led them to this

approach, whether there were certain “events” that our participants lived through that encouraged

them to develop a critical stance, and how and why (or if) their scholarship changed over time.

The interview protocol also helped us ensure that members of the research team collected the

same key information from each of the participants.

Oral histories differ from other forms of qualitative interviews. They tend to be more in-depth

than most interviews, and the content is grounded in participant reflections on past events,

although they may also address issues concerning contemporary contexts (OHA, 2009).

Although research team members are cognizant of the role and impact of subjectivity in this

project, efforts were made to support transparency and trustworthiness. For example, informal

member checking was built into the interview process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Interview

transcripts were analyzed by members of the research team using the constant comparative

method, meaning analysis was ongoing, open-ended, and inductive (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;

Patton, 1990). Taped interviews were transcribed as soon after the interview as possible. After

unitizing the transcripts (i.e. identifying units of information in the interview transcript), team

members identified working categories in which we located specific data units. These categories

were subsequently modified as we worked through each of the interview transcripts, seeking

what Lincoln and Guba (1985) described as a “saturation of categories” and an “emergence of

regularities” (p. 350). Comparative pattern analysis, which involved searching for categories

exhibiting “internal homogeneity” and “external heterogeneity,” was used to illuminate recurring

patterns in the data (Patton, 1990, p. 403). To increase the trustworthiness of the coding,

transcripts were exchanged among team members and several excerpts were recoded.

Findings

Our data analysis revealed a number of continuities and discontinuities in the way people gave

meaning to and employed critical policy analysis, some of which were expected and some less

so. For example, while participants focused their work on a wide array of educational policy

issues, the concerns that drew them to engage in critical policy analysis reflected broader themes,

such as growing disparities among different educational subpopulations, the increased

centralization of power and influence, and global educational policy trends. However, in

addressing such issues, participants became frustrated with traditional approaches. This, coupled

with their desire to contribute differently or more robustly to the knowledge base in education,

led many to adopt a more critical approach. We assumed this would be the case. Most interesting

were findings concerning factors that influenced the participants’ work in this area. Below, our

findings are organized into two major sections focused on the purpose of critical policy analysis

and the evolving nature of this kind of research.

Expanding the purpose of critical policy analysis

In our interviews, we asked scholars to describe in their own words the rationale for using

critical lenses to inform their educational policy work. Their responses reflected a number of

interconnected themes. The most common rationale for engaging in critical policy analysis was

to interrogate the policy process and the epistemological roots of policy work. Part of

interrogating the policy process involves examining the players involved in the process as well as

policy constructions. Based on the literature, we anticipated responses focused on the role of

power and the social construction of knowledge. Less anticipated were the responses focused on

activism and bridging research to practice. We provide further clarification on each of these

themes in the following subsections.

Interrogating policy processes and roots

The scholars interviewed for this project found critical policy analysis an indispensable tool for

questioning the roots of much policy work. Contrasting their work to traditional policy analyses,

several scholars pointed out how critical policy analysis enabled a deeper critique of the

contextual nuances and complexities of the policy process. One scholar explained how critical

policy analysis was “focused on the questions of epistemology,” and, unlike traditional

approaches to policy analysis, critical policy analysis recognizes the complexities of policy

contexts and how these complexities impact what we know to be real and true.

The scholars we interviewed found it important to carefully examine policies and interrogate the

policy process because, as they pointed out, policies are “subjective,” “value laden,” “complex,”

and “messy.” Through critical policy analyses researchers can decipher multiple arguments or

viewpoints, question and discover how nebulous concepts become reality, and explore how ideas

become normalized. In the words of one participant, critical policy analysis enables both

discovery and exploration of “how categories work, and how do they become fixed, and how do

we need to constantly challenge the categories?” In this sense, critical policy analysis is a tool for

questioning structures and systems within the policy field.

Data revealed that participants placed particular importance on using critical policy analysis to

explore and question the policy process. One researcher said:

We should be constantly asking questions: is this the way it has to be; what’s the value of

doing it this way; how are people hurt by this; what are the alternatives? And then: How

do you collect information that informs decisions? What would present a compelling case

for changing the policy that may be having negative impacts?

According to a second scholar, critical policy analysis reveals critical imperfections in the way

traditional scholars think about the policy process:

You are more or less guided by the tenets of traditional policy analysis, meaning that it’s

a realist, structuralist epistemology. There’s a real world out there, and it’s flawed. It’s

deeply flawed, and it’s flawed in a very predictable way. Doing work in that area means

that you would deal with inequity, you would anticipate people being both effective and

ineffective, you are a strong component of “there’s got to be practice” and “there’s got to

be change,” and “you can’t get in this conversation just to do the critique; you also have

to take part.”

Within the policy field, this scholar explained, deeply held beliefs about reality and agency are

palpable.

Power and voice in policy

The same deeply held beliefs that govern the behavior and assumptions of many policy scholars

also impact the role of power and voice in policy processes. Scholars ascertained that critical

policy analysis enabled them to explore, “what is the role of power in making knowledge …

which is always shaped by power relationships” as well as, “to investigate the kinds of questions

that fundamentally have to do with power and access to the policy process … about what and

who has informed this definition over time.” It was noted that deep investigations of individual

policies enabled a better understanding of the way power and voice operated within the policy

process.

In some cases, analysis involved exploring the power imbalances among discourse within

communities, interest groups, or policy-makers vis-à-vis those impacted by policy. In their work,

several scholars used questions such as, “Who is sitting around the decision-making table, and

more importantly, who’s not sitting around the decision-making table?” to identify who has a

voice in the policy process. Researchers also described the examination of inequities in power as

exploring questions of “Who’s winning and who’s not winning?” or “Who’s benefiting and

who’s not benefiting?”

Through the process of raising critical questions, several scholars focused specifically on

identifying and exposing inequities and social injustices, such as “loss of opportunity or lack of

opportunity,” “who is not represented and why,” and “what are going to be the repercussions and

for whom?” Such explorations unmask how one community’s accumulation of power may result

in another community’s loss of power. To illustrate, one scholar found critical policy analysis

allowed him to, “ask really important questions about the role of race and racism, of inequity, of

issues of social justice and oppression.”

Scholars also stressed the importance of exploring silences by looking at, “what policy says and

doesn’t say, looking at how problems and solutions are defined and not defined, what voices are

included and not included, and looking for voices on the margin.” One participant referred to

such silences as “white spaces.” White spaces reveal:

What’s missing; what needs to be there that’s not there; what are the silences that are

there, and why aren’t they being addressed; and what can you do to help make sure that

they are addressed? So looking at inequities, looking at loss of opportunity or lack of

opportunity, looking at silences, looking at who’s not represented and why …

This idea of distinguishing not only what is centered in policy and policy conversations but also

what is marginalized or absent was a common concern among the scholars we interviewed. One

scholar explained:

We don’t just look at how the problems and solutions are defined …. [We also examine]

how they’re not defined. We don’t just look at whose voices were included, but try to

figure out what the silenced voices would say if they did have a chance to voice their

concerns.

In other words, using a critical framework when analyzing policy enables the exploration of the

voices of those typically not heard in traditional policy contexts and processes.

Policy constructions

Conducting comprehensive examinations of specific policies involving detailed analyses of each

policy-making and implementation stage, for some scholars, was the crux of critical policy work.

Several scholars described their analytical work as “unpacking the assumptions,” exploring the

foundational ideas “underpinning the policy,” or “unpacking the sense making” of policy

discourse. One researcher defined critical policy analysis as a method for critiquing/questioning

various stages of policy enactment:

I want to know who is behind the policy, whose voice is being privileged …. And then I

want to see how that rolls out to every student, and how it affects particular students ….

So analyzing policy in a critical way to see how it is enacted, who it affects, who’s

putting it forth, what it means, how it actually does or does not do what the intent is.

This scholar explained that exploring how policy is enacted allows the researcher to consider the

contextual intricacies of the policy process:

You’re going in very well aware that there are societal structures that oppress. And policy

is then the vehicle through which these things are cemented or not. And so that’s a very

different perspective than going in with that kind of an ahistorical, non-historical view.

For some researchers, an examination of this nature was not an end in itself, however. Rather,

just over half of the researchers engaged in this project considered analyses an essential

precursor to engaged and activist research. In the words of one scholar, “critical policy analysis

opens up a space for activism.”

Engaged and activist research

Although the complexity offered through the application of most critical perspectives to policy

analysis might make it hard to accept that influencing policy could even be an option for critical

policy scholars, our participants identified informing the work of policy-makers as a key purpose

for conducting critical policy analysis. Expressing dissatisfaction with the way the policy process

has traditionally worked, they have sought ways to bring different perspectives to bear on policy.

According to one participant, “most critical perspectives enable not only critique, but also

indications of what might work in the best interest of certain populations. … We need to learn to

speak the language of those who draft and approve policy.”

Thinking about the development of this particular area of scholarship, one scholar expressed the

expectation that critical policy work is more than an intellectual exercise – that it influences

practice and policy. Another scholar remarked that critical policy analysis is focused not only on

theoretical change but on real change as well:

A lot of times we do research and we propose … what we think may be some practices

that are worthy of consideration at the policy level. Some real pieces that we’ve done for

legislators have actually become part of the state directives. We feel pretty good about

that.

One participant explained that critical policy analysis fosters a:

perspective and the methodological approaches to be able to be more of an activist … it

allows me to center the stories and the perspective of students and of families and of

communities that have for very much [of the time] been silenced in this.

Respondents linked their purpose for conducting critical policy analysis to bridging the gap

between policy and practice, grounding this bridging activity in the field. Participants shared that

their use of critical perspectives that emphasized context and collaboration enabled them to

communicate authentically with and be useful to a variety of stakeholders, including teachers,

principals, and regional or district leadership personnel. However, making research findings and

policy analyses accessible to local educators and educational leaders appeared to be of utmost

importance to this group. For example, one researcher stated:

The thing you’re trying to do with the practitioners is to try to show how they can use the

policy – any policy. It’s a leverage; some agency for them. You know, how can you

subvert it, how can you move it, how can you use the discourses to mobilize them in

ways that actually make it a value meaningful to them as practitioners?

Another participant provided a perspective on how to build bridges between policy and

educators’ practice: build educators’ capacity and then assist them in advocating for or making

needed changes. This researcher explained that part of understanding how to leverage state or

federal policy within local schools to support typically underserved student populations involves

challenging wrong-headed beliefs about such students with data, introducing alternate ways of

thinking and practicing, and then setting up systems to support them as they change their

practice.

Indeed, another researcher told us that given the current direction of federal and national

education policy, critical policy analysis:

is wonderful because we have an obligation, those of us in universities, to ask what

structural priorities aren’t being addressed when we direct federal funding streams in

certain directions. And I think that it becomes harder to have that kind of dissent, if you

will, when there is such a powerful sort of torrential flood and momentum in one

direction. I think it’s essential for the field of policy to nurture independence in scholars.

I think we want to continue to bring in people from many different disciplines to ask

these questions.

This researcher went on to say that it is important to “be experimental” and not “be afraid to pose

questions that are right at the heart of central issues about power,” particularly when it comes to

what this researcher described as the “new federal role” in education.

One scholar explained that the key value of critical policy analysis was how it enabled a

“revolutionary stance … looking at: What does this policy do within this grid that privileges

some and marginalizes and oppresses others? It is a different view.” Along similar lines, a

different scholar stated:

The problem is there and there’s a sense of urgency to do something about the problem.

… We have to be engaged. We have to care about something so much that it’s going to

move us to act, that it’s going to move us to do something, not just necessarily write

about it.

Not surprisingly, given the common association of critical policy analysis with taking a stand,

one participant stated that conducting critical policy analysis entailed personal risk:

I think that you can’t separate whom you write about and what you’re passionate about

from what you do in the real world. … There’s an affective component that … motivates

me to want to do something about that. … So, I really feel – I think I do the work because

I’m coming from a different epistemological space, a space of deep, profound caring; a

space of wanting to be changed.

The evolving nature of critical policy analysis

As we sought to understand how scholars conducting critical policy analyses gave meaning to

their scholarship, we worked to identify the scholars who influenced their research, critical

incidents that influenced their thinking, the methods and theories they used, as well as how their

work changed over the course of their careers. While we were interested in determining whether

there were any consistent themes in their responses, which might enable us to develop a more

succinct definition of critical policy analysis and to track its roots, we also felt that careful

consideration should be paid to how the area is evolving over time and in different scholarly

communities.

Not surprisingly, how participants situated critical policy analysis into their own research and

where they saw themselves fitting into the field were related to which scholars and scholarship

they identified as informing and guiding their work. Our findings suggest that the critical policy

researchers included in this study have been influenced by a range of scholars representing

multiple disciplines. However, findings also suggest that they identify foremost with theoretical

frameworks drawn from sociology.

Although participants identified most strongly with sociological theories, the breadth of theories

utilized makes it difficult to determine a core group of influential scholars or pieces of

scholarship. Those participants who had similar research and theoretical interests tended to have

more overlap among the individuals they considered to be influential than across the group as a

whole. For example, critical feminist policy analysts listed both early and contemporary feminist

theorists as well as early critical theorists as influential in their research. One scholar shared, “the

tradition of existentialism feeds into this to some degree. Various social democratic and neo-

Marxist schools feed into it. But the school of critical theory is also very broad.” That we were

unable to identify a set of seminal pieces anchoring the work of these scholars appears to point to

a field in motion. Critical policy analysis is and has been evolving for over a decade.

The notion of an evolving field fits well with the scholars’ descriptions of their work. For

example, our participants described how their way of thinking continued to evolve over time:

I think a lot of things influence you … it builds up over time … the story of me as a

researcher, it’s constantly evolving … I think the thing that doesn’t change is this desire

to make a difference.

A number of factors were attributed to such change, including new research and theory, re-

reading theory with new experiences and ideas, gaining confidence as a researcher, and being

influenced by the thinking of other critical scholars with whom they have worked. Several

participants shared how going back to research they read in the past provided new meaning in

today’s context. One stated:

I revisited a lot of stuff that I had read … in grad school. But reading them again meant

something different to me. I reread several … pieces about White racism and the work of

Foucault and Bourdieu. It was all new to me. Yes, I had read it before but it all meant

something totally different to me when I started being out in the field and thinking about

these issues in my work.

Several scholars explained that they entered the field with the expectation that thinking would

continue to evolve. They explained how their graduate work pulled from a variety of critical

perspectives and that their graduate programs’ faculty encouraged them to read widely and seek

out research and theory that were using ideas in new ways. One participant shared:

[Professors] encouraged us to read really widely across disciplines because those

[experiences] become really fertile means for developing research questions. And I think

in my case that really worked, that encouragement to read so widely … I’ve been lucky

that I’ve never really had to be defined by just one discipline.

Similarly, another participant described an “open/interdisciplinary system” in his critical policy

work:

You’ve got an open system, and you’ve got a system that lends itself to different

traditions that you can ensure the future of the field by not having to be stagnant and

relying on the same series of time immemorial. You’ve got to be able to still grow, and I

think that that’s some of the work that’s exciting, and that’s one of the things that teaches

us in doing this work. I think all of us … doing work with queer theory; or whether it’s

others doing work with critical race theory or with feminism … we’re bringing in

different kinds of theoretical traditions and, in the process, redefining and reshaping the

field.

Interestingly, one scholar asserted that the current notion of an “open system” may not be open

enough. This scholar acknowledged the importance of drawing on work from classic critical

scholars but wondered if critical policy researchers were relying too much on a narrow group of

scholarship, due to an implicit agreement about their importance. He expressed concern that

over-reliance on one tradition may limit the field from discovering other ideas, perspectives that

could be just as significant:

Lots of people draw on Bourdieu and Foucault when they do critical policy analysis. But

there’s a lot more than Foucault out there. There’s a lot more than Bourdieu. … I don’t

know how many times I see Freire cited in something now.

To clarify, his concern was not that Bourdieu, Foucault, or Freire were being used, but that

scholars were creating new norms by using a circumscribed group of scholars and scholarship.

“People just cite it because they think they’re supposed to cite it. And I just wonder how much

we’re actually mining the different fields to get ideas that should influence what we think about

…” The consensus from scholars we interviewed was that in order for a field like critical policy

analysis to survive, scholarship and theory must continue to grow and evolve.

Just as bringing different perspectives into the field was viewed as a necessity, the same held true

for methodology. Our analysis revealed that the critical policy scholars we interviewed primarily

made use of qualitative inquiry, which included a wide variety of approaches including but not

limited to case studies, oral history interviews, narrative approaches, and discourse analysis.

Those who made use of quantitative data and methodology did so in conjunction with qualitative

approaches. One researcher told us how using even basic statistical methods and analyses can

enhance qualitative inquiries:

And what I find is, quantitative data in any form, even if it’s the most basic form, leads

me to ask different kinds of questions of my qualitative data. And the qualitative data

allows me to go back and look differently at the quantitative data. And so, even when I

constructed that survey that we did with [higher education institutions], using a

discrepancy model to me was a unique way to get at something that was more qualitative

in nature. So it’s not, do you do this; what value does it have. And to me that going back

and forth – and then we had open-ended questions so I had qualitative responses there

that I actually could use to go back and look at what did I have numerically that gave me

some different insights. So, I have found that to be a really rich way to look at things.

In our exploration of the relationship between participants’ theoretical frameworks and

methodological approaches, we used Lather’s (2006) paradigm typology to categorize

approaches to critical policy analysis. This typology delineated the way researchers respond to

ontological, epistemological, and methodological questions to research aims, values, voice,

representation, and integrity according to four paradigms (i.e. positivism/post-positivism,

interpretivism, critical approaches, and deconstruction). Categorizing our participants’ work in

this way provided a means for understanding how their philosophical stance informed their use

of theory in the research process.

None of our participants’ responses fell within the first paradigm, positivist/post-positivist,

which suggests an objective or naïve realist perception of reality; however, approximately half of

their perspectives reflected the critical paradigm. Within the critical paradigm, knowledge is seen

as socially constructed, and facts, it is argued, should be explored within historical, political, and

social contexts. These researchers described challenging status quo beliefs and understandings,

and focusing on issues of power and inequality to capture the complexities of oppression

impacting marginalized people (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Furthermore, researchers working out

of this paradigm (e.g. critical theorists and feminists) shared how they challenged the inequities

embedded in the social life of the researched and focused on status inequalities like race,

ethnicity, social class, gender, and sexual orientation (Anyon, 1980; Capper, 1999; Crenshaw et

al., 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lather, 2006; Lopez, 2003;

Lugg, 2003; Marshall, 1997; Young, 2003). Each of the scholars whose work reflected this

category raised questions like: “Who is behind the policy?” and “Who is the voice that’s being

privileged in this situation, and whose voice is being marginalized?”

The other half of the informants positioned their work within the deconstructivist paradigm.

Participants who considered themselves deconstructivists described using post-modern/post-

structural lenses to examine issues of power and oppression, to challenge notions of knowledge,

meaning and universal truths, to interrogate inequality embedded in social life, and to pose

questions regarding the construction of reality, such as “Is there a there?”

Interestingly, only one participant self-identified as an interpretivist, explaining that reality is

constructed based upon human meaning making. Further, this scholar explained that the

theoretical framework used in her research depended upon its fit with the topic of the research:

My [current] work is critical White theory, which would then fall under interpretivism.

But I vary the theoretical frames I use, because I see that as different because there would

be a different theoretical frame for each particular study I do, for the most part.

The use of different, and in some cases multiple, theoretical and methodological approaches was

typical of many of the critical policy scholars we interviewed.

Regardless of their particular theoretical framework, collection tools, or presentation style,

critical policy analysis scholars unanimously rejected traditional approaches to analysis that

relied solely on linearity of thought, used a narrow range of data-gathering tools, and privileged

data as fact. Participants instead emphasized the importance of providing a contextualized

understanding of their research findings, reflecting the complexity of the policies, people,

schools, and communities they impact. We heard time and again from our participants that the

methodological approaches utilized in any study should be based on, “the question that I want to

have to answer, and then what would be the best method for answering that question, and what

data would provide me with the ideas and the information that I would need.” Furthermore,

participants who described themselves as operating out of the critical frame explained that they

used collaborative ethnographic and narrative approaches in an attempt to provide a fuller story

(or the story behind the story) and/or deeper accounts that provide texture and complexity.

Scholars who reflected the deconstructivist frame described their work as either ethnographic, as

incorporating multiple lenses, or as involving critical discourse analysis. Utilizing a form of

bricolage (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005), wherein scholars apply the

tools that best fit the job, our research participants seemed to use methods that enhanced their

capacity to collect relevant data and support their analytical and interpretative work.

Discussion

The profound shifts taking place in contemporary social life warrant a shift in our research

traditions (Young, 1999), and the shifts taking place within the field of education and educational

policy specifically, warrant a shift in educational policy analysis. This investigation sought to

develop an understanding of the critical policy analysis approach to policy studies, and to

discover and describe how and why scholars are working to question and redefine work within

the policy studies field. Accordingly, our findings highlighted how the critical policy scholars

who participated in our research gave meaning to critical policy analysis, how they have shifted

away from, and attempted to expand upon, more traditional policy research and analytical

approaches in education as well as what scholarship influenced their work.

We found that, for the most part, participants’ articulation of critical policy analysis reflected the

five underlying concerns of critical approaches to research and policy studies presented earlier in

this article. Specifically, they asserted that critical approaches to policy analysis: (1) involve an

interrogation of the policy process, the use of policy symbols and rhetorical devices as well as

the delineation of the difference between policy rhetoric and policy reality (Ball, 1998;

Edelman, 1971; Fischer, 2003; Malen et al., 2002; Moses & Gair, 2004; Smith et al., 2004;

Winton, 2013); (2) examine the roots and development of policy, including how policies emerge,

what problems they are intended to solve, and how they reinforce dominant culture

(Brewer, 2014; Gale, 2001; Scheurich, 1994); (3) uncover elements of social stratification, the

distribution of power, resources, and knowledge in policy creation and implementation, and the

creation of winners and losers (Anyon, 1980; Ball, 1998; Dumas & Anyon, 2006; Forester, 1993;

Foucault, 1972; Honig, 2006; Malen et al., 2002); (4) explore the broader and deeper effects of

policy work, such as the institutionalization and the internalization of dominant culture

(Anderson, 1989; Bourdieu, 1991; Gillborn, 2005; McLaren & Giarelli, 1995); and (5) promote

agency, resistance, advocacy, and praxis (Anderson, 1989; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008;

Ginwright et al., 2006; Valenzuela & López, 2011). Importantly, our participants’ notions of

critical policy analysis also expounded beyond the aforementioned fundamentals, elucidating

additional concerns, theories, methods, and processes for critical policy analysis.

Participants in this study defined critical policy analysis as a means to discover and/or question

the complexity, subjectivity, and equity of policy as well as to illuminate intended and

unintended consequences of the policy implementation process (Valencia, Valenzuela, Sloan, &

Foley, 2001), supporting Lasswell’s original vision for policy analysis (Fischer, 2003). In order

to fulfill such purposes, the critical policy analysts we interviewed utilized less traditional

approaches in their scholarship and a variety of theoretical frameworks, either alone or in

combination. The scholars noted that critical policy analysis allowed them to work outside of

what they viewed as constraints within traditional policy analysis methods and theoretical

frameworks.

Common among all participants’ contributions was a desire to use their role and efforts as

researchers to make a difference in the lives of students and communities, particularly those that

have been historically marginalized by the educational system, through their policy research, to

facilitate empowerment, to critique traditional approaches to policy analysis, and, ultimately, to

connect their research to practice. Levinson et al. (2009) put it well when they noted that scholars

who use, “critical approaches to policy research have as the imagined horizon of their analysis a

picture of the possible” (p. 769). Such desires reflect those published by scholars many identify

as critical, both within and outside of the policy studies community (Anderson, 1989;

Gillborn, 2005; McLaren & Giarelli, 1995).

Furthermore, the work they conducted did not end with journal publications, research reports, or

policy briefs. Rather, participants conducted research to influence and take a stand against

education policies they viewed as working to advantage some groups and disadvantage many

others, to explore the imbalance of power (absences and silences) of policy-making, and to

expose power and rhetoric – what many consider “commonsense” or taken-for-granted beliefs

(Bernal, 2005; McLaren & Giarelli, 1995; Riddell, 2005). As such, their work took them into the

field, town halls, and the offices of legislators. Scholars indicated that by focusing on issues of

equity and exploring the context of policy issues, they became more engaged with communities

as they were able to see at a grassroots level how policy impacted people’s everyday lives.

The researchers we interviewed have had long careers as educational policy analysts, spanning

between 20 and 35 years. In our effort to learn more about these policy scholars and what shaped

their work, we found their sources of influence to be vast. Not only did scholars draw from a

variety of fields, including education, sociology, anthropology, and political science, but their

work was also informed by a variety of epistemological perspectives. As they grew as scholars

their theoretical viewfinders and understanding of critical policy analysis evolved, sometimes

slowly and at other times in sudden jolts. Though such growth is not uncommon in academic life,

the scholars in our study emphasized the significance of critical scholarship in their development

as well as in their openness to, and in some cases, their search for, new frameworks that might

provide deeper meaning for and understanding of their policy questions.

Just as scholars described their own perspectives as evolving, they pointed to changes in the field

of education as well, noting that as conditions within the field became increasingly complex they

sought different methods and perspectives with which to examine those conditions. Given the

centrality of questioning to how scholars defined critical policy analysis, one would expect this

to some extent. The scholars interviewed not only questioned the policy process – the

subjectivity, equity, power imbalances, silences, and constructions and consequences – but they

also questioned their own previous theoretical leanings or ways of seeing.

Given the theoretical and methodological eclecticism which characterized the work of our

participants and that of critical scholars in the field, we did not expect to find, nor did we find, a

singular or concrete definition of critical policy analysis during our inquiry. Rather, researchers

described critical policy analysis in a variety of ways and used a range of theories, approaches,

and tools to thoroughly examine educational policy issues. A strict definition of critical policy

analysis may have no place within critical policy analysis as that would imply a “one best way”

to conduct education policy research. Indeed, this would run counter to the epistemological

variety out of which critical policy analyses are derived.

Still, there were important commonalities, one could even describe them as features, which held

this group of scholars together as a community. The distinctive features of critical policy analysis

include theory, method, and purpose. With regard to theory, we found that critical policy

researchers are making use of a broader range of theoretical lenses in their work. Increasingly,

critical educational policy researchers are pulling more from sociological work than from

theoretical work in policy and politics. In some cases, scholars are blending theoretical

perspectives, engaging in a “theoretical eclecticism” (Ball, 1997; Mosen-Lowe et al., 2009;

Taylor, 1997). Without question, critical policy scholars are providing novel perspectives for

research problems in education literature.

When conducting research, there is a preference for rich description, connection to context and

voice, authenticity, and collaboration. Perhaps what reveals policy work as critical policy

analysis best, however, is the purpose(s) associated with it. For the scholars who participated in

this study, these included making a difference in the lives of students and communities that have

been historically marginalized by the educational system, positively influencing education and

social policies, critiquing traditional approaches to policy analysis, exposing power and rhetoric,

facilitating empowerment and emancipation, and connecting their research to practice and

activism.

Concluding thoughts

According to Gilliland and McKemmish (2004), there is a new interest in “research discerning

the evolution of intellectual landscapes” (p. 175). Tracing the origins and major ideas that have

shaped the identity of a field is a type of “reflexivity” which is a “hallmark of maturity”

(Gilliland & McKemmish, 2004) of a field of study.

In this article, we have sought to understand “what counts as critical policy analysis.” Two

features, in particular, set the work of critical policy analysis apart: the theoretical frames from

which critical policy researchers draw and the purposes for which critical policy analysts put

their scholarship to work. Scholars reasoned that multi-theoretical and interdisciplinary

approaches to policy analysis enable deeper and broader understanding of educational issues, and

allow the researcher to investigate and question the complexities of educational issues, such as

why certain changes are occurring within the field of education, why certain options tend to be

chosen as policy options and solutions, and how such pathways have impacted or are likely to

impact children and their communities. The resulting analyses of educational policies, they

argue, have more depth and breadth than traditional methods and theoretical frameworks allow.

Interestingly, even those scholars who considered themselves to be a certain type of critical

policy scholar (e.g. a critical feminist) reported using different frameworks in their body of work.

Our findings provide a glimpse into the hearts and minds of the critical policy community, share

concrete examples of the questions with which these scholars struggle, and delineate the methods

and theories they have applied in their work. As such, this investigation into the intellectual

landscape of critical policy analysis provides an instructive look into a vibrant policy research

community and breaks ground for deeper investigations of the relationship between the ontology,

epistemology, and methodology of critical policy researchers.

Notes on contributors

Sarah Diem is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy

Analysis at the University of Missouri. Her research focuses on the sociopolitical and geographic

contexts of education, paying particular attention to how politics, leadership, and implementation

of educational policy affect diversity outcomes. She has published in the American Journal of

Education, Educational Administration Quarterly, Teachers College Record, Educational

Policy, The Urban Review, Education Policy Analysis Archives, the Journal of Research in

Leadership Education, and the Journal of School Leadership, among other publications. She is

also co-editor of Global Leadership for Social Justice: Taking it from the Field to Practice.

Michelle D. Young is the executive director of the University Council for Educational

Administration (UCEA) and a professor in Educational Leadership at the University of Virginia.

Her scholarship, which has been recognized by several international awards, focuses on how

school leaders and school policies can support equitable and quality experiences for all students

and adults who learn and work in schools. Her work has been published in Educational

Administration Quarterly, Review of Educational Research, Educational Researcher,

the American Educational Research Journal, the Journal of School Leadership, the International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, the Journal of Educational Administration,

and Leadership and Policy in Schools, among other publications.

Anjalé D. Welton is an assistant professor in Education Policy, Organization and Leadership at

the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her current research examines the politics of

equity in school reform and improvement. She is especially concerned about how shifting social-

political contexts influence how school leaders dialogue about race and diversity in their school

improvement decisions. Other research areas related to equity include college and workforce

readiness and access, especially for students of color, and the role of student voice and activism

in school improvement efforts. She has representative publications in Teachers College

Record, Educational Administration Quarterly, and The Urban Review, among others.

Katherine Cumings Mansfield is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership at Virginia

Commonwealth University and earned her PhD in Educational Policy and Planning at The

University of Texas at Austin where she also completed a doctoral portfolio in Women’s and

Gender Studies. A PK-12 veteran educator, she now teaches doctoral courses in Education

Policy Research, Program Evaluation Theory and Methods, and Education Finance Policy and

the Equitable Distribution of Resources. She has published her work in Educational

Administration Quarterly, Education Policy Analysis Archives, and the Journal of Educational

Leadership, and co-edited the book, Women Interrupting, Disrupting, and Revolutionizing

Education Policy and Practice, with Whitney Sherman Newcomb, Information Age.

Pei-Ling Lee is the director of curriculum and instructor at Austin Chinese School and a research

assistant of University Council for Educational Administration. She holds a PhD degree in

Educational Administration. Her research interests focus on language acquisition and policy,

high-stakes assessment, academic achievement, accessibility of high-quality education for

language minority students, and gender studies. Her most recent work has examined program

placement, access to education service, educational attainment, and academic outcomes for

newly arrived adolescent English Language Learners across varied high school contexts in

Texas. She has published her work in the Handbook of Research on Educational Leadership for

Diversity and Equity, Journal of Educational Administration, Journal of School Public

Relations, and University Council for Educational Administration Review.

References

Ackerman, D. J. (2006). The costs of being a child care teacher: Revisiting the problem of low

wages. Educational Policy, 20, 85–112. doi:10.1177/0895904805285283

Adams, D. (1991). Planning models and paradigms. In R.

V. Carlson & G. Awkerman (Eds.), Educational planning: Concepts, strategies, and

practices (pp. 5–20). New York, NY: Longman.

Aleman, E. (2007). Situating Texas school finance policy in a CRT framework: How

“substantially equal” yields racial inequity. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 43, 525–558. doi:10.1177/0013161X07303276

Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new

directions. Review of Educational Research, 59, 249–270.

doi:10.3102/00346543059003249

Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 62, 67–

92.

Apple, M. (1982). Education and power. London: Routledge.

Atwood, E. D. (2011). San Antonio v. Rodriguez: Understanding Texas school finance history

through a Latino critical race theory framework (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.

Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse:

Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21, 45–57.

Ball, S. J. (1991). Politics and policy making in education. London: Routledge.

Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories, and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10–17.

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural

approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research: A personal review of recent

education policy and policy research. British Educational Research Journal, 23, 257–

274. doi:10.1080/0141192970230302

Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in

education policy. Comparative Education, 34, 119–130. doi:10.1080/03050069828225

Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: Policy

Press.

Becker, G. (1986). The economic approach to human behavior. In J. Elster (Ed.), Rational

choice (pp. 108–122). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bernal, J. L. (2005). Parental choice, social class and market forces: The consequences of

privatization of public services in education. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 779–792.

doi:10.1080/02680930500293825

Blackmore, J. (1997). Level playing field? Feminist observations on global/local articulations of

the re-gendering and restructuring of educational work. International Review of

Education, 43, 439–461. doi:10.1023/A:1003038021606

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brewer, C. A. (2008). Interpreting the policy past: The relationship between education and

antipoverty policy during the Carter administration (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.

Brewer, C. A. (2014). Historicizing in critical policy analysis: The production of cultural

histories and microhistories. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education, 27, 273–288.

Burke, P. (2004). What is cultural history? Cambridge: Polity Press.

Capper, C. A. (1999). (Homo)sexualities, organizations, and administration: Possibilities for

in(queer)y. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 4–11.

Chartier, R. (1988). Cultural history: Between practices and representations (L. G. Cochrane,

Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Chase, S. E. (2008). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd

ed., pp. 651–679). London: SAGE.

Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The

key writings that formed the movement. New York, NY: The New Press.

deLeon, P., & Vogenback, D. M. (2007). The policy sciences at a crossroads. In F. Fischer, G.

J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics,

and methods (pp. 3–14). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New

York University Press.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative

research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative

research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dumas, M. J., & Anyon, J. (2006). Toward a critical approach to education policy

implementation: Implications for the (battle)field. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in

education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 149–168). Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Duncan-Andrade, J., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: The promises of moving

from theory to practice in urban schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Dunn, W. N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Edelman, M. (1971). Politics as symbolic action: Mass arousal and quiescence. Chicago,

IL: Markham.

Elster, J. (1986). Introduction. In J. Elster (Ed.), Rational choice (pp. 1–33). Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.

Fenwick, T. J. (2010). (un)Doing standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of

Education Policy, 25, 117–133. doi:10.1080/02680930903314277

Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple

University Press.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practice. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019924264X.001.0001

Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice: Toward a critical

pragmatism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon.

Gale, T. (2001). Critical policy sociology: Historiography, archaeology and genealogy as

methods of policy analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 16, 379–393.

doi:10.1080/02680930110071002

Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race

theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 485–505.

doi:10.1080/02680930500132346

Gilliland, A., & McKemmish, S. (2004). Building an infrastructure for archival

research. Archival Science, 4, 149–197. doi:10.1007/s10502-006-6742-6

Ginwright, S., Noguera, P., & Cammarota, J. (2006). Beyond resistance! Youth resistance and

community change: New democratic possibilities for practice and policy for America’s

youth. New York, NY: Routledge.

Green, A. (1999). The houses of history: A critical reader in twentieth-century history and

theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Hamann, E. T. (2003). The educational welcome of Latinos in the New South. Westport,

CT: Praeger.

Honig, M. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in educational policy implementation: Confronting

complexity. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.,

pp. 303–342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York, NY: Harper

Collins.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers

College Record, 97, 47–67.

Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in

education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education, 19, 35–57. doi:10.1080/09518390500450144

Levin, H. M. (1988). Cost-effectiveness and educational policy. Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis, 10, 51–69. doi:10.3102/01623737010001051

Levinson, B. A. U., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power:

Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational

Policy, 23, 767–795. doi:10.1177/0895904808320676

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in

naturalistic evaluation. In D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation (pp. 73–84). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school

reform. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. doi:10.4324/9780203465509

Lopez, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory

perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 68–94.

doi:10.1177/0013161X02239761

Lugg, C. A. (2003). Sissies, faggots, lezzies, and dykes: Gender, sexual orientation, and a new

politics of education? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 95–134.

doi:10.1177/0013161X02239762

Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D., & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting schools:

“Testing” the “theory of action”. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113–

132. doi:10.3102/01623737024002113

Marshall, C. (1997). Dismantling and reconstructing policy analysis.

In C. Marshall (Ed.), Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from primary and

secondary schooling (pp. 1–39). London: The Falmer Press.

Marshall, C. (1999). Researching the margins: Feminist critical policy analysis. Educational

Policy, 13, 59–76. doi:10.1177/0895904899131006

Marshall, C. (2000). Policy discourse analysis: Negotiating gender equity. Journal of Education

Policy, 15, 125–156.

Marshall, C., & Young, M. D. (2006). Gender and methodology. In C. Skelton, B. Francis,

& L. Smulyan (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gender and education (pp. 63–

78). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

McDonnell, L. M. (2009). A political science perspective in education policy analysis.

In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy

research (pp. 57–70). New York, NY: Routledge.

McLaren, P., & Giarelli, J. M. (1995). Introduction: Critical theory and educational research.

In P. McLaren & J. M. Giarelli (Eds.), Critical theory and educational research (pp. 1–

22). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. (1992). Organizational behavior: Managing people and

organizations (3rd ed.). Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.

Mosen-Lowe, L. A. J., Vidovich, L., & Chapman, A. (2009). Students “at-risk” policy:

Competing social and economic discourses. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 461–476.

doi:10.1080/02680930902759712

Moses, M. S., & Gair, M. (2004). Toward a critical deliberative strategy for addressing ideology

in educational policy processes. Educational Studies, 36, 217–244.

Nagel, S. S. (1984). Contemporary public policy analysis. Birmingham, AL: The University of

Alabama Press.

Oral History Association (OHA). (2009). Principles for oral history and best practices for oral

history. Retrieved from http://www.oralhistory.org/do-oral-history/principles-and-

practices/

Ostrum, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and

development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 35–

72). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Peterson, P. (1970). Forms of representation: Participation of the poor in the community action

program. The American Political Science Review, 64, 491–507. doi:10.2307/1953845

Pierson, P. (2004). Dependence, increasing returns, and the study of politics. American Political

Science Review, 94, 251–267.

Popkewitz, T. (1984). Paradigm and ideology in educational research. New York, NY: Falmer

Press.

Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational

analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Riddell, R. (2005). Government policy, stratification and urban schools: A commentary on

the Five-year strategy for children and learners. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 237–

241. doi:10.1080/0268093052000341421

Rist, R. (1994). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.

S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 545–557). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (Eds.). (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the

policy agenda. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.

Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Policy archaeology: A new policy studies methodology. Journal of

Education Policy, 9, 297–316. doi:10.1080/0268093940090402

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). How social construction of target populations contributes

to problems in policy design. Policy Current, 3(1), 1–4.

Shaker, P., & Heilman, E. E. (2008). Reclaiming education for democracy: Thinking beyond No

Child Left Behind. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sirotnik, K. A., & Oakes, J. (1986). Critical inquiry for school renewal: Liberating theory and

practice. In K. A. Sirotnik & J. Oakes (Eds.), Critical perspectives on the organization

and improvement of schooling (pp. 3–93). Boston, MA: Klower Nijhoff.

doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4229-5

Smith, M. L., Miller-Kahn, L., Heinecke, W., & Jarvis, P. F. (2004). Political spectacle and the

fate of American schools. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Stanfield, J. (1993). Epistemological considerations. In J. Stanfield & R. Dennis (Eds.), Race and

ethnicity in research methods (pp. 16–36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support

networks of U.S. Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.). New York,

NY: W.W. Norton.

Taylor, S. (1997). Critical policy analysis: Exploring contexts, text and

consequences. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18, 23–35.

Valencia, R. R., Valenzuela, A., Sloan, K., & Foley, D. E. (2001). Let’s treat the cause, not the

symptoms: Equity and accountability in Texas revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 318–

326.

Valenzuela, A., & López, P. D. (2011, April). Shaping the political echo chamber: Chican@

activism, political awareness, and engaged policy. Paper presented at the annual National

Association for Chicano and Chicana Studies Tejas Foco Conference, Pasadena, CA.

Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call

to complexity. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 153–167.

doi:10.3102/0013189X08318050

Weimer, D. (1995). Institutional design. Boston, MA: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-0641-2

Weimer, D., & Vining, A. R. (2011). Policy analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Longman.

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Wilson, J. (1980). The politics of regulation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Winton, S. (2010). Character education, new media, and political spectacle. Journal of Education

Policy, 25, 349–367. doi:10.1080/02680931003624532

Winton, S. (2013). Rhetorical analysis in critical policy research. International Journal of

Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 158–177.

Young, M. D. (1999). Multifocal educational policy research: Toward a method for enhancing

traditional educational policy studies. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 677–

714. doi:10.3102/00028312036004677

Young, M. D. (2003). The leadership crisis: Gender and the shortage of school administrators.

In M. D. Young & L. Skrla (Eds.), Reconsidering feminist research in educational

leadership (pp. 265–278). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.