International organisations' importance in education policy has been growing in recent years. They have been able to promote their role by providing data and interpreting it through international assessments and guidance, and by highlighting some countries or regions as benchmarks for global improvement, performance, and efficiency. International organisations' output feeds policy reform arguments in national and regional contexts. We analyse debates on education policy in the Portuguese parliament with the aim of understanding the roles of external references to international organisations, their instruments, and associated countries. We understand the agenda-setting process through political, problem, and policy streams as described by the Multiple Streams Approach. Our analysis shows that external references play a key role in the three streams as extra sources of authority used by policymakers in the attempt to open new policy windows and couple the three streams, resulting in policy change.
This article seeks to analyse how epistemic work (Alasuutari, 2018; Alasuutari and Qadir, 2019) in Portuguese parliamentary education debates develops through externalisation to world situations (Schriewer, 1990) whose references are used as epistemic capital (Alasuutari, 2018). The study explores debates occurring during Legislature X (2005–2009), in which the number of external references in plenary education debates significantly peaked compared with previous and subsequent legislatures. The analysis demonstrates that there was a change in the (de-)legitimation strategies policymakers used during this legislature. In addition to using the traditional ideological principles associated with each party, deputies often opted to use international organisations and their instruments, alongside reference societies, as authoritative sources to strengthen arguments and persuade their audience of their validity. This suggests that parliamentary policymakers assume that these external elements are useful in earning support for their policy ideas and promoting reform proposals.
The Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA) has instigated domestic policy debate aimed at improving education systems' quality and efficiency. Its high performers are often described as knowledge-based legitimation tools that have become reference societies. This article analyses if and the extent to which PISA affects the choice of reference societies used in education policy. We conducted a systematic literature review of scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles. We identify two ways in which PISA affects the reference societies chosen: it builds but also triggers the collapse of the reference societies used in domestic education policy. However, there are also cases in which PISA has little influence on which countries or regions are used as references. The domestic processes of choosing the reference societies used in education policy emerge as more nuanced than first expected. This article provides a firm basis for a much-needed understanding of the topic.
Introduction: reflective researchOne of our research project's assumptions is that the topic of quality assurance and evaluation (QAE) is political: it is an important framing factor for education, a major interest for many different stakeholders, and a governance tool (Nóvoa & Yariv-Mashal 2003). In this respect, it is possible that our research will be used for political purposes, an aspect most of our research participants and fellow researchers certainly recognise. Self-reflection is therefore essential.In Chapter 1, we discussed our ontological and epistemological premises and how the analytical framework on which we draw, Comparative Analytics of Dynamics in Education Politics (CADEP), directs our focus to three dimensions we see as relevant for an understanding of the questions raised in complexity studies and the approaches of political science to contingency. While the previous chapter addressed the "why" question of our research, here we open more broadly the questions "how" and "what". There is no simple answer to these questions, because the shared view of scholars is that research is never as straightforward as research reports describe -and in this respect, this book is no exception. Our research journey has taken a route with paths, streets, cul-de-sacs, and wanderings through uncharted territories. As a research consortium, we have held CADEP as a compass, while continuously debating its interpretation. A description of this journey is needed for validity: indeed, sharing our journey is as important as arriving at our destination. In this chapter, we therefore chart it as fully and as critically as possible.We believe the key to maintaining validity in a qualitative research project such as ours is to adopt a reflective approach throughout. We share the view iterated by many scholars, but which Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009) aptly describe and summarise, that interpretation, and the interpretation of interpretation, is the key feature of research. They state that reflective research considers four elements, which we highlight here and discuss further in the following sub-chapters.• Researchers should be conscious of the interpretation made. We have channelled the interpretations from the outset with the help of the CADEP analytical framework. Despite this shared analytical starting point, Interpretation: comparing three dimensions of dynamicsWe continue this reflection on the nature of our research by addressing the question of our analytical framework in relation to those of others. Our research concentrates on understanding the political dynamics in QAE. To
This article uses thematisation theory (Luhmann, 1996; Pissarra Esteves, 2016) and frame analysis (Entman, 1993) to analyse externalisations to world situations (Schriewer, 1990) in the Portuguese print media’s discussion of education. Our data constitutes news and opinion articles collected after each PISA cycle’s results was published. The analysis demonstrates that the education themes discussed in the media between 2001 and 2017 are consistent, despite occasionally being discussed more intensively, frequently following the themes highlighted by PISA reports and OECD media communications. The frames used for these themes are more diverse, changing according to the speaker’s agenda and viewpoints. Externalisations (frequently PISA, OECD, and other participants in the survey) serve as sources of authority that help in thematising and framing education. This process works as a mechanism of double reduction for the complexity of the social world, narrowing the possibilities of how education is seen and interpreted by the public.
The extent to which education is nationally or internationally directed is a recurring debate in comparative education. The debate circles around the role of the nation state in the globalizing world. The authors address these questions by focusing on networks of knowledge and expertise in Finland’s national core curriculum reform (2014). The findings of the chapter demonstrate that education policy making is more complex than the simple dichotomy of local and global. “Global” has the power to produce evidence but the “local” possesses the ability to select the evidence and adjust it to meet the national needs. National experts play a central role in this process: it is particularly their ability to explicate international comparative data that was considered as “expertise” in the reform process.
This chapter examines the practice of evidence-based policymaking in five Nordic countries. By comparing the references that national policy actors have utilized in their policy documents to evidentiate policy ideas and recommendations, it draws attention to the contextual factors that shape each country’s practice of evidence-based policymaking. The results illustrate that all five Nordic countries actively use evidence to support and legitimate their policy proposals; however, their utilization varies by (1) institutionalized forms of policymaking system, (2) degree of self-referentiality, and (3) type of reform. This comparative study offers timely reflections on how the discourse of evidence-based policymaking is interpreted and adapted differently across countries.
This article analyses discussions in the Russian media of the proposal to introduce the Unified State Exam (USE) in English as a mandatory test in the last year of (high) school education 2010s. The decision not to implement the mandatory USE in English was taken in August 2020. In the aftermath of the decision, we investigate the decade-long media debates. Building methodologically on frame analysis, we examine the frames used in the online media to present the pros and cons of English testing, and the qualitative modifications of these frames over time. We argue that media coverage of English as a compulsory test parallelled changes in the politics of nation-building and language policies. First it reflected the idea of Russia as a global economic actor, striving to reap the benefits of a global economy, and framed the acquisition of English as part of the global economic and political community. However, as the state’s prerogatives changed, English began to be discussed as a threat to national unity, national security and the mastery of Russian. Moreover, the ‘national’ became associated, with separation from the rest of the world and its perceived threat.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.