topic 9 policy process study: policy formulation and making pedu 6209 policy study in education

Topic 9Policy Process Study:

Policy Formulation and Making

PEDU 6209

Policy Study in Education

Analytic-Technical Perspective

Interpretive-Political Perspective

Discursive-Critical Perspective

Policy Making

Policy Implementation

Policy Evaluation

Perspectives and Processes in Policy Studies

Theories of the Policy-making Process

The first generation of policy-making process theories Scientific-rational model Incrementalist model Garbage can model

The second generation of policy-making process theories Comprehensive rational model The stages heuristic model New Institutionalism model The multiple stream model The discourse model

Comprehensive Rationalist Perspective in Policy Making Theory

Comprehensive rational framework: The ideal-typical framework Problem analysis

Pathology control approachDesirability striving approach

Comprehensive information gathering Solution analysis

Best solution approachSatisfice and good enough resolution approach


Harold Lasswells’ intelligence system for policy making Intelligence: The stage of intelligence collection, which

consists of Information of the status quo of the phenomenon to be

intervene Information of causal relations among vital constituents in

operation within the policy phenomenon Information of the feasibility of candidate solutions Cost-benefit analysis of candidate solutions

PROBLEM ANALYSIS

1. Understanding the problem

2. Choosing and explaining relevant goals and constraints.

3. Choosing a solution method.

(a) Receiving the problem: assessing the symptoms.(b) Framing the problem: analyzing market and government failures.(c) Modeling the problem: identifying policy variables.

COMMUNICATIONConveying usefulAdvice to clients

SOLUTION ANALYSIS

4. Choosing evaluation criteria

5. Specifying policy alternatives

6. Evaluating: predicting impacts of alternatives and valuing them in terms of criteria

7. Recommending actions.

INFORMATION GATHERINGIdentifying and organizing relevant data, theories and facts; using facts as evidence about future consequences of current and alternative policies.

Figure 8.1:A summary ofSteps in the Rationalist Mode

(Weimer & Vining, 1992)


Harold Lasswells’ intelligence system for policy making Promotion: The stage of considering the pros and cons of

candidate solutions Prescription: The stage of making decision on the

prescription of the course of action to be taken Invocation: The stage of laying down the rules and

regulations based upon which the policy prescriptions can be invoked

Application: The stage of carrying out the course of action stipulated in the policy by the designated authority.

Termination: The stage of bringing the course of action to a close as designed

Appraisal: The stage of evaluating the effectiveness or/even efficiency of the policy measures.

Political Perspective in Policy Making Theory

Criticism on comprehensive rational framework by incrementalism and the introduction of political rationality into the policy process study

Conceptual difference between political rationality and means-end rationality

Means-end rationality refers to agency that a person acts in a conscious and knowledgeable “way in which the attainment of his goal can be maximized in the real world.” (Dahl & Lindblom, 1992, p.57)

Political rationality refers to the agency that the person will make conscious and knowledgeable consideration of the political reality and its entailed constraints and opportunities, within which the maximization of the means-to-an-end / satisfice project is carried out.


Pluralism: The simple institutional model The general political system model: Pluralism as a theory

of policy making or politics in general is generated from the political system model. In political system model, political process is characterized as input-process-output-feedback model.

Pluralistic model characterizes the policy making with the following attributes

• Plurality of interest groups each with equal capacities in inputting political demands into the polity

• The polity processes the plurality of political demands in impartial and indiscriminant manner

• Plurality of administrative output to meet with plurality of political demands


Advocacy coalition model This model further specifies that the networking

among policy actors in policy making process by put forth the concept of advocacy coalition. It indicates that policy actors will form coalition in order to advocate a particular policy choice. These coalitions will subsequently constitute a stabilizing parameter or institutional inertia within a policy area.


The state theory

State theorists criticize pluralism and political system of treating the state as a blackbox or an impartial arbitrator of political demands. In replacement, they put forth different thesis on the natures and features of the modern state The instrumental-state perspective The corporatist-state perspective The derivative-state perspective Competition-state perspective

Simon and March’s Contribution to the New–institutionalism

The contribution of Herbert Simon: Herbert A. Simon, the Nobel laureate in Economics 1978, in his now-classic Administrative Behavior (1997/1945) has made to important distinctions, Distinction between economic man and administrative

man: Simon underlined that " The model of economic man was far more completely and formally developed than the model of the satisficing administrator. …limited rationality was defined largely as a residual category—as a departure from rationality." (P. 118)


(1916-2001)

Nobel laureate In Economics 1978


The contribution of Herbert Simon: … Distinction between the maximization principle (best

solution) and satisfice principle (good-enough solution): "Whereas economic man supposedly maximizes—selects the best alternative from among all those available to him—his cousin, the administrator, satisfices—looks for course of action that is satisfactory or "good enough". (P.119)


James March’s conception of logic of appropriateness: James G. March, who once coauthored with Simon in another now-classic, Organizations (1958/1993) and has since then become one of the representative figures in new-institutionalism, underlines that


James March’s logic of appropriateness… Policy making process is not simply a rational

calculation of means-end and/or cost-benefit analyses but should be conceived predominantly as institutional processes; hence they are by definition influenced if not determined by the features, structures and cultures of the institutions, in which the policy making processes are supposed to undergo.


Accordingly, he makes the distinction between the logics of consequence and that of appropriateness. Logic of consequence: “The idea is that a reasoning

decision maker will consider alternatives in terms of their consequences for preferences.” In other words, it assumes that “decision processes …are consequential and preference-based. They are consequential in the sense that action depends on anticipation of the future effects of current actions. Alternatives are interpreted in terms of their expected consequences. They are preference-based in the sense that consequences are evaluated in terms of personal preferences. Alternatives are compared in terms of the extent to which their expected consequences are thought to serve the preferences of the decision make. (March, 1994, P. 2)


James March’s logic of appropriateness… Logic of appropriateness: “When individuals and

organizations fulfill identifies, they follow rules or procedures that they see as appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves. Neither preferences as they are normally conceived nor expectations of future consequences enter directly into the calculus.” (March, 1994, p. 57)


James March’s logic of appropriateness… Accordingly, decision makers are no longer based on

the choices solely on consequences of actions and the extent that their preferences are satisfied by the consequences of actions. Instead they would base their choices on the follows: (p.58)“1. The question of recognition: What kind of situation is this?

2. The question of identity: What kind of person am I? Or what kind of organization is this?

3. The question of rules: What does a person such as I, or an organization such as this, do in a situation as this?” (March, 1994, P. 58)


Taking together, Simon and March’s conceptions on decision making process, policy making processes are no longer conceived as simple rational, consequential and preference-based calculations taking places in some socio-cultural vacuum. Policy-making processes must be studied against the institutional contexts and situations in which they are embedded. Decision makers, who recognized in these institutional contexts, are embodied with particular identities. And deriving from these institutional contexts and identities are rules that these decision makers would find themselves obliged to follow.

Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis & Development in Rational-Choice Institutionalism

Elinor Ostrom, one of the co-winners of the 2009 Nobel Prize in economic science, has developed the IAD framework to analyze how an aggregate of rational decision makers come to reciprocal decision of mutual benefits. (Ostrom, 1990; 1999; 2005)

Elinor Ostrom(1933-2012)


Elinor Ostrom, one of the co-winners of the 2009 Nobel Prize in economic science, has developed the IAD framework to analyze how an aggregate of rational decision makers come to reciprocal decision of mutual benefits. (Ostrom, 1990; 1999; 2005) The framework is made up of three tiers of conceptual units, namely (1) the action arena, (2) the exogenous variables, and (3) the interaction patterns and their outcomes. This framework can be represented as follows.


(Source: Ostrom, 2005, P. 13)


The action arena: The core conceptual unit of the IAD framework is what Ostrom called the action arena. The action arena of made up of two units, namely the actors and action situation


Action situation: “The structure of an action situation includes the set of participants, the specific positions to be filled by participants the set of allowable actions and their linkage to outcomes, the potential outcomes that are linked to individual sequence of

actions, the level of control each participant has over choice, the information available to participants about the structure of the

action situation, and the cost and benefits―which serve as incentive and

deterrents―assigned to actions and outcomes.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 43)

Roles

Roles expectation

Roles performance

Social Control


Action situation: …

In addition, an action situation can further be characterized as recursive or non-recursive. This conceptual unit can be represented as follows. (Source: P. 33)

Non-recursiveSituation

RecursiveSituation


The actors: Actors in the action arena can either be “a single individuals or a group functioning as a corporate actor.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 44) This actors are assumed to possessmeanings and values imputed to the situations;resources, information, and beliefs; information-processing capacities; and decision-making strategies brought to the situation.

With these possessions, Ostrom suggested that actors can further be characterized into for examples as “Homo economicus”, “Fallible learner”, “opportunist”, etc


The exogenous Variables: The second tier of conceptual unit consists of three exogenous variables, each of which will asset its effect on the dependent variable, i.e. action arena. These exogenous variables include The rules in use: The concept of rules: Ostrom defines rules as “shared

understanding among those involved that refer to enforced prescriptions about what actions are required, prohibited, or permitted. All rules are the results of implicit or explicit efforts to achieve order and predictability among humans by creating classes of persons (positions) that are then required, permitted, or forbidden to take classes of persons in relation to required, permitted, or forbidden states of the world.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 49, original emphases)


The exogenous Variables: … The rules in use: …

Rule configurations: Ostrom differentiates seven types of working rules each of which affect one aspect of the structure of the respective action arena. These rules are represented as follows. (Source: Ostrom, 2005, P. 189)

Accordingly, these seven types of rule will configure into a set of “rules-in-use” in a particular action arena and subsequently in an institution.


States of the world: It refers to the biophysical/material condition, in which the action arena is embedded. Ostrom has specified the attributes of the states of the world with two dimensions, namely excludability and subtractability. Excludability refers to the extent that whether the goods and/or

services available in a given state of the world are difficult and costly to exclude those who are not entitled to consume the respective goods and/or services.

Subtractability refers to the extent that whether numbers of consumers consuming the goods and/or service in a given state of the world will subtract the quantity and quality of the respective goods and/or services.


States of the world: …..Accordingly, goods and services available in a given state of the world can be categorized as follows. (Source: Ostrom, 2005, P. 25)

Subtractability of use

Excludability of potential beneficiaries

High Low

High Private goods Toll goods

Low Common-pool resources

Public goods


Attributes of community: The third set of exogenous variables affecting the structure of the action arena is the community and its attributes. It is the least development conceptual unit in the IAD model. This underdevelopment of the conceptual unity of community is understandable given the academic background of Ostrom, who is a political scientist focusing on rational-choice institutionalism. She has specifically assigned the task of developing the conceptual unit of community to sociologists, who “tend to be more interested in how shared value system affect the ways human organize their relationships with one another.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 50)


Attributes of community: …

Ostrom has simply outlined five attributes of community, namely (Ostrom, 2005, P. 26-27) “values (and norms) of behavior generally accepted in the

community; the level of common understanding that potential participants

share (or do not share) about the structure of particular types of action arenas;

the extent of homogeneity in the preferences of those living in a community;

the size and composition of the relevant community; and the extent of inequality of basic assets among those affected.”


The interaction patterns and outcomes: Ostrom, as an institution analyst, underlines that the accuracy of institutional analysts’ inference of interaction patterns (i.e. institutions) and outcomes generated in a given action arena depends on the empirical attributes of the exogenous variables, the actors and the action situations in the IAD models at point.


Market Institution: Prefect competitive market

Types of goods Rules in use Community culture Action arena Interaction pattern / institution

Private goods: high excludability and high subtractability

- Free entry, - Equal position, - Rational

maximize, - Prefect

information, - Price takers, - Equal cost and

benefit for all, - Market

equilibrium

- Norm & value of profit-maximization

- Money as the common language

- homogenous preference

- infinite numbers of participants

- One type of

actors: Homo economicus

- Action situation:

Free transaction of homogeneous goods or service;

Non-recursive/ Recursive

Prefect Competitive Market


Tragedies of the Common

Types of goods Rules in use Community culture

Action arena Interaction pattern / institution

Common-pool resources: Low excludability and high subtractability

- Free entry, - Equal position, - Rational

maximize, - Incomplete

information, - The sooner &

more the better, - Costless

benefit, - Detrimental

effects on resources, which run out quickly

Zero-sum game: You gain is my loss, and my gain is your loss

- The actors: The

self-interest oriented “common”

- Action situation:

Egocentric appropriation of common-pool resources; Non-recursive/ recursive

Tragedy of the Common


Application of tragedy of the common on the impact of Direct-Subsidized Scheme (DSS) on the common-pool of schools and schoolplaces in the public-school sector of Hong Kong.


Prisoner’s dilemma: Ostrom conceives prisoner’s dilemma model in game theory as a particular case of common-pool resource (CPR) situation. Instead of numerous participants, in prisoner dilemma model there are only two participants. However, under the assumption of rational calculation of maxcimizattion of bebefit, the situation would only encourage defect and discourage cooperation. Hence, the results of the prinsoners’ rational choices are the same as CPR situation, i.e. tragedy of the common.

Prisoner B stays silent (cooperates)

Prisoner B betrays (defects)

Prisoner A stays silent (cooperates) Each serves 1 year

Prisoner A: 3 years Prisoner B: goes free

Prisoner A betrays (defects)

Prisoner A: goes free Prisoner B: 3 years

Each serves 2 years

《表六》香港小學校方及家長的兩難

你

進行學能測驗操練不進行學能測驗操練

我

進行學能測驗操練

（A）雙方均承受操練帶來的惡果雙方在 SSPA的成績調節機制中均沒有優勢

（C）我需承受操練帶來的惡果，我在 SSPA的成績調節機制中取得優勢

不進行學能測驗操練

（B）我可避免操練帶來的惡果，我在 SSPA的成績調節機制中陷於劣勢

（D）雙方均可避免操練帶來的惡果，雙方在 SSPA的成績調節機制中均沒有優勢


Evaluating outcomes: The final conceptual unit of the IAD framework is the evaluating the outcomes being achieved. Ostrom proposes that the outcomes can be evaluated under six criteria. These evaluative criteria are: Economic efficiency: “Economic efficiency is determined by

the magnitude of the change in the flow of net benefits associated with an allocation or reallocation of resources.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 48)


Evaluating outcomes: … Fiscal equivalence: “There are two principal means of

assessing equity: (1) on the basis of the equality between individuals’ contributions to an effort and benefits they derive and (2) on the differential abilities to pay. The concept of equity that underlies an exchange economy holds that those who benefit from a service should bear the burden of financing that service.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 48)

Redistributional equity: “Policy that redistribute resources to poorer individuals are of considerable important. …The provision of facilities that benefit particularly needy groups …may conflict with the goal of achieving fiscal equivalence.” Ostrom, 1999, P. 48)


Evaluating outcomes: … Accountability: “In democratic polity, officials should be

accountable to citizens concerning the development and use of public facilities and natural resources. Concern for accountability need not conflict greatly with efficiency and equity goals.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 48)


Evaluating outcomes: … Conformance to general morality: This criterion refers to

evaluate the level of general level of general morality fostered by a particular set of institutional arrangements.” And Ostrom has suggested two of such general morality. One is honesty, which concerns with issues such as “are those who are able to cheat and go undetected able to obtain very high payoffs? Are those who keep promises more likely to be rewarded and advanced in their careers?” Another general morality is sustainability of reciprocal interaction, i.e. “How do those who repeatedly interact within a set of institutional arrangements learn to relate to one another over the long term?” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 49)


Evaluating outcomes: … Adaptability: Lastly, Ostrom underlines that “unless

institutional arrangements are able to respond to ever-changing environments, the sustainability of resources and investment is likely to suffer.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 49)

Taken as a whole, Ostrom reminds us “trade-off are often necessary in using performance criteria as a basis for selecting from alternative institutional arrangements. It is particularly difficult to choose between the goals of efficiency and redistributional equity.” (Ostrom, 1999, P. 49)

Policy-Making Theory III: Multiple Stream Approach

The approach grows out of the Garbage Can Model, which is another alternate policy-process model to the scientific-rational model in the 1970s. The primary assumption of the model is the emphasis on the ambiguity nature of the policy phenomena.

By ambiguity, it refers to “a state of having many way of thinking about the same circumstances or phenomena.” (Feldman, 1989, quoted in Zahariadis, 1999, p.74) The concept of ambiguity differs from the concept of uncertainty, which is one of the constituent concept in rational model, is that uncertainty can be reduced or even eliminated by information and analysis of it, while ambiguity on policy phenomena cannot be reduced by information but in some case may even enhance it.


Another essential assumption of the approach is that policy issues or even problems are not attended in an analytic-rational way as the scientific-rational model assumes. The garbage-can and multiple-stream models stress that the logic of approaching policy issue is temporal sorting and not rational choice.

“Who pays attention to what and when is critical. Time is a unique, scarce resource. Because the primary concern of decision-makers …is to manage time effectively rather than manage tasks. It is reasonable to pursue a lens (approach) that accords significance to time rather than to rationality.” (Zahariadis, 1999, p.74)


John Kingdon’s three streams in policy making Problem: It refers to the conditions or mechanism on which policy

makers identify, define and take action on a policy problem. They include Indicators Dramatic events or crisis Feedback of existing programs

Policy: It refers to the conditions spawned from the policy issues or phenomena themselves. They include Policy ideas generated from policy communities The prospect of technical feasibility and value acceptability of the policy

itself

Politics: It refers to the conditions grow out of the political environment. They include National mood Legislative and executive turnover


John Kingdon’s three streams in policy making The conception of the coupling of the streams and the

formation of “policy window”. Kingdon signifies that when the three streams are joined together at critical moments in time, they will constitute a “policy window”. As a “policy window” opens, it indicates that the policy issue will elevate into a policy agenda and sequent policy-making steps will materialized.

Policy-making Theory IV: Discourse Perspective

In discursive perspective, policy making is construed as language game of persuasion and argumentation. Hence, policy-making studies are analyses of how different parties concerned frame, organize and possibly win the argumentation in a policy discourse.

Formal argument model in policy analysis Constituents in formal argument model (William Dunn)

ClaimInformationWarrantBackingQualifierRebuttal

The Logical Structure of Policy Argument

Claim affirms thatthe policy conclusion

is true

Policy-relevantInformation is the

beginning of a policy argument

CI

W

Warrant justifiesthe movement

from I to C

since

therefore

C becomes I in a sequent

argument


MTI for allin compulsory

education

Mother tongueInstruction (MTI)enhance learning

effectiveness

CI

W

Findings of International Studies

in Educational Achievement (IEA) for Science

since

therefore


argument


Rebuttal indicatesthat special conditions,

exceptions, or qualifications to

W, or I reduce theplausibility of C

Backing justifies W

Claim affirms thatthe policy

conclusion is true as qualified

Policy-relevantInformation is the

beginning of a policy argument

CQI Qualifier indicatesthat the claim hasa given plausibility

W

Warrant justifiesthe movement

from I to C

R

B

since

therefore

because

unless


argument


Not in EnglishNot at more advanced

levels

Backing justifies W


education

MTI enhance learning

effectiveness

CQI On what subjects?

At what levels?

W

Findings of IEA

for Science

R

B

since

therefore

because

unless


argument


Not in most of post-colonial

states

Backing justifies W


education

MTI enhance learning

effectiveness

CQI Most of independent

States adoptMTI

W

UNESCO1953 Document

R

B

since

therefore

because

unless


argument

Policy Argumentation: Interpretive Approach

Formal argument model in policy analysis Constituents in formal argument model (William Dunn)

ClaimInformationWarrantBackingQualifierRebuttal

Types of argumentative claimsDesignative claims on factsEvaluative claims on valuesAdvocative claims on actions

Policy Argumentation: Interpretive Approach

Interpretive approach to policy argument Deep description of arguments of different interpretive

communities Constituents of the architecture of argumentation and the

textuality of argumentative/persuasive textsGenreFrameRhetoricNarrative

The Conception of Genre in Critical Discourse Analysis

Concept of genre “A genre is a group of texts that share specific discursive

features.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.163). Genre means “distinctions within convention …between text

types.” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 13) More specifically, Fairclough defines “genre as socially ratified way of using language in connection with a particular type of social activities,” (Fairclough, 1997, p. 14) e.g. interview, narrative, exposition, argumentation, persuasion.

Accordingly policy text and/or discourse can mainly be construed as argumentative and/or persuasive genre of text and/or discourse.


Concept of genre According to Richard Edwards and his associates persuasive

text may take the following formsDeliberative genre: It refers to policy discourse which is

“associate with policy and its future orientated and speculative.” (Edwards et al., 2004, p.19) For example, in documents relating to recent education reform, they commonly refer to the future of global-informational economy and network society and how education reform should prepare students to fit into new species of flexible and workers and/or networkers.

Forensic genre: It refers to policy discourse which “focuses on past events and attempt to provide an account that is taken to be true.” (ibid) For example, the rhetoric of presenting data of declining standards in comparative educational research and statistics of falling competitiveness of national economy in global market can be construed as a kind of forensic genre.


Concept of genre According to Richard Edwards and his associates persuasive

text may take the following formsEpideictic genre: It refers to policy discourse which focuses on

the contemporary. However, in epideictic genre one can usually find “the notion of ‘naming and shaming’, publicly denouncing organizations and individuals who fail to meet the quality standards and inspection criteria to which they are subject.” (ibid) For example, blaming on teachers, naming negative value-added schools, and shaming failing schools.

Conception of Frame in Policy Studies

Law and Rein define frame “as a way of representing knowledge, and as the reliance on (and development of) interpretative schemas that bound and order a chaotic situation, facilitate interpretation and provide a guide for doing and acting.” (Law and Rein, 2003, p.173)


The concept of frame finds its scholarly resonance in the well-documented concept of “definition of situation” in symbolic interactionism. As Law and Rein quote in length of Goffman’s exposition

“I assume that when individuals attend to any current situation, they face the question: ‘What is going on here?’ Whether asked explicitly, as in times of confusion and doubt, or tacitly, during occasions of usual certitude, the question is put and the answer to it is presumed by the way the individual then proceeds to get on with the affairs at hand.” (Quoted in Law & Rein, p. 175)


The functions of frames in policy argumentation are to (Law & Rein, p. 174) “note a special type of story that focuses attention” “provide stability and structure by narrating a problem-

centred discourse as evolves over time,” “define the boundary between evidence and noise”, “wed fact and value into belief about how to act”


Types of policy frame Rhetoric frame Action frame

Policy action frame: It refers to “the frame an institutional actor uses to construct the problem of a specific policy situation.”

Institutional action frame: It indicates the frame held by institutions. This signifies that as agents of thought and action, institutions possess characteristics point of view, prevailing system of beliefs, category scheme, images, routines and styles of argument and action, all of which inform their action frames.” (Schon & Rein, 1994, p.33)


Framing HKSAR education reform Lifelong learning for employability and competitiveness Lifelong learning for social inclusion and political empowerment

Framing Quality Education Quality for analytic-technical control Quality for communal understanding of trust and care Quality for potential emancipation

Framing MOI policy MOI policy as issue of learning effectiveness MOI policy as issue of nation-building MOI policy as issue of social capital formation MOI policy as issue of human right

Conception of Rhetoric in Policy Studies

Meanings of rhetoric: Rhetoric has a long history in Western literary as well as philosophical traditions. It can be traced back to Aristotle. Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the ability to see, in any given

case, the available means of persuasion.” (Aristotle, 1991, quoted in Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p. 155)

Wharley defines it as “the findings of suitable arguments to prove a given point, and the skillful arrangement of them.” (Whately, 1963, quoted in Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p. 155)


Meanings of rhetoric: A dictionary definition of rhetoric is that it is “the art of using

language so as to persuade or influence others.” (Edwards et al. 2004, p.3) Hence, Rhetorical analysis involves the study of the ways in which we attempt to persuade or influence in our discursive, textual and gestural practices. (Edwards et al., 2004, p.13) Hence, “part of the job of the rhetoric analyst is to determine how constructions of ‘the real’ are made persuasive” (Simon, 1990; quoted in Edwards et al., 2004, p. 13) “Here the question is not so much about whether reality matches rhetoric or not, but which fabrications of the real are more persuasive and why.” (Edwards, et al., 2004, p.13)

As for the case of educational discourse, rhetoric analysis aims to explore and reveal “hidden rhetoric aspect to educational discourse.” (Edwards et al., 2004, p. 9)


Constituents of rhetoric performance: It has been identified by analysts of rhetoric that there are several essential constituents for a rhetoric performance, i.e. to make rhetoric persuasive. They are Context: Rhetoric by definition is pragmatic in nature, i.e. it

“responds to or interacts with societal issues or problems, and it produces some action upon or change in the world.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.161). Therefore, in order to be comprehended and/or critically analyzed the rhetoric in a policy text, it must be set against the context (temporal, socio-cultural and/or pragmatic contexts), in which it is derived.


Constituents of rhetoric performance: Exigence: It refers to the way the issue and/or problem to be

addressed in the rhetoric of a policy text are defined and formulated. For example, in recent education reforms, the most commonly used exigencies are either the decline of standards of students and school leavers or the threat of losing national competitiveness in global economic competitions.


Constituents of rhetoric performance: Audience: It signifies the actual or figurative audience, whom

the rhetoric of a policy text suppose to address or appeal to. For example, in recent education-reform documents, the audiences to be addressed are usually employers and/or parents rather than teachers and education professions. It indicates a sense of distrustfulness to professionals, who usually been depicted as the sourced of falling standard in education and/or falling competitiveness in national economy. Even within the audience of parents, they has been defined as consumers striving for individual gains rather than as citizens constituting common will and good for the society as a whole.


Constituents of rhetoric performance: Rhetor credibility: It indicates the authorities of the speakers

or writers of the texts, and/or the authorities that the rhetoric of a policy documents try to appealed to. For example, appeal to concepts as well as authorities of neo-liberal economists, such as Milton Friedman, in policy texts of education reform of liberalization is one of the most common practices in recent education reforms.

Absence: It has been underlined that one of the essential components in analyzing rhetoric is “what is absent from or silenced by the text.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.169).


Constituents of rhetoric performance: Metaphor: “The essence of metaphor is understanding and

experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; quoted in Edwards, 2004, p.25) In metaphoric analysis, it is claimed that “human understanding is a metaphoric process; the mind grasps an unfamiliar idea only by comparison to or in terms of something already known. Thus the metaphoric language in a text presents a particular view of reality by structuring the understanding of one idea in terms of something previously understood.” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.173)

For example, in the rhetoric of the neo-liberalism the education system is metaphorically prescribed as a market mechanism, a school as a input-output factory, students as materials to be processed and added on value, parents as choosing consumers, school principals as CEO, etc.


Constituents of rhetoric performance: Iconicity: “Iconicity functions in a way that is similar to

metaphor, iconicity ‘rests on the intuitive recognition of similarities one field of reference (the form of language) and another.’” (Gill & Whedbee, 1997, p.174) For example, HK school like to use celebrity graduates as rhetoric to indicate the quality of the school.

Conception of Narrative in Policy Studies

Conception of narrative in policy study Narrative can be defined as literal representation

which takes the form of a storyline, i.e. with clear beginning, development, and end.

It refers to the ‘storyline’ that each interpretive community constructs, follows and put fore in a policy argumentation. It is a representation schema a interpretive community used to define their situation in the policy reality and organize their arguments.


The structure of narrative: Numbers of scholars have tried to summarize the structure of a narrative. Here Hyden White’s formulation will be adopted

Central subject: The narrator or the main character in the story. In the case of policy argumentation, the central subject is a particular interpretive community/interest group.

Plot: It refers to the sequence of events selectively organized into a narrative

by an interpretive community in the policy argumentation. It represents “a structure of relationships by which the events contained

in the account are endowed with a meaning by being identified as parts of an integrated whole” (P.9)

“The plot of a narrative imposes a meaning on the events that make up its story level by revealing at the end a structure that was immanent in the events all along.” (p.20)


The structure of narrative: Closure:

It refers to the resolution, evaluation and even moral meaning elicited from the precedent sequence of events, i.e. plots.

As White indicates “a proper historical narrative … achieves narrative fullness by explicitly invoking the idea of a social system to serve as a fixed reference point by which the flow of ephemeral events can be endowed with specifically moral meaning. … (Hence), the chronicle must approach the form of an allegory, moral or analogical as the case may be, in order to achieve both narrativity and historicality.” (p. 22)

As in the case of policy narrative, the closure performs the function of resolving the policy alternatives and/or conflicts, evaluating the policy choices, and attributing moral meanings to the policy conclusion. But most importantly these resolution, evaluation and attribution are all constructed according to the worldview and/or vested interest of the interpretive community concerned.


The structure of narrative: Authority: Narratives will usually be present in

authoritative manner as if they are the establishment of facts, order and even truth


Narrative identity and decision-making by rule following

By relating James March’s institutionist thesis of decision-making by rule following with the interpretive approach to narrative identity of interpretive communities


Narrative identity and decision-making by rule following The conception of interpretive community can be

construed as a community with a particular narrative identity on a policy issue

As a result members of an interpretive community will follow the logic of appropriateness in making decision on policy issue

Hence, they are most unlikely to approach the policy decision at hand in self-interest calculation orientation but to base the decision on the narrative identity of the interpretive community to which they have identified.

Analytic-Technical Perspective

Interpretive-Political Perspective

Critical-Discursive Perspective

Policy Making

Comprehensive Rational Model

Political Approach

New institutionalism

State Theory

Multi-Stream & Policy window Approach

Discourse Approach

Argumentation

Frame

Rhetoric

Narrative

Perspectives and Processes in Policy Studies

END

7Policy Process Study: Policy-Making Study

topic 9 policy process study: policy formulation and making pedu 6209 policy study in education

Documents

policy study

generation of policy

policy alternatives

policy formulation

policy studies

policy measures

policy prescriptions

policy variables