Mapping the field of knowledge production on “inclusive” education policies in Argentina (2000-2013): its strengths, weaknesses and challenges.

Author(s):

Analia Meo(presenting / submitting)Cora Steinberg

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

23 SES 01 C, Inclusive Policies in Local Education Markets

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-02

13:15-14:45

Room:

B334 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Anja Sinikka Heikkinen

Contribution

This paper maps different research traditions on what we call “inclusive” educational policies in secondary schools in Argentina, during the period 2000-2013. It proposes a typology of studies based on their research questions, theoretical perspectives, and methodological strategies. Following Stevens (2007), a research tradition refers to a collection of studies that ask similar types of questions and deploy related conceptual and methodological tools to answer them. It also recognizes dominant and emerging conceptions of “policy process” and “policies”.

This paper´s contribution is twofold. On the one hand, it is the first systematic attempt to make visible what type of knowledge has been produced on “inclusion” in secondary education over the last decade in this national context. This exercise allows the identification and understanding of its current blind spots as well as its challenges. On the other hand, it offers an analysis of the role of the state in steering of the production of knowledge on educational policy. This serves as a basis for a critical examination of educational research elsewhere and the necessity to be reflexive about the categories and concepts we use to examine policy processes. Following Bourdieu (1994), there is a permanent risk of applying concepts forged by the state to achieve its own purposes (mainly legitimation, Bourdieu (1994) argues) in our policy analyses, which could hamper the understanding of the processes under scrutiny.

Two sets of conceptual tools were used to interrogate how different “research traditions” conceptualize the “policy process” and “policies”: one developed in Latin American on the state and public policies and the other on educational policy process developed by S. Ball and colleagues. Definitions of the “state”, “educational policies” and “policy process” offer a crucial baseline to tease out how identified studies problematize educational policy. Following Oszlack and O´ Donnell (1981), the state needs to be considered as “relational”. It configures a negotiation scenario wherein different political forces and social groups that are able to negotiate attempt to impose their own interests. Educational policies, like any other “public policy”, need to be conceived as socio-historic dynamic processes and as outcomes of struggles between different sectors and social and political actors. Following Acuña (2007) and Zeller (2007), educational policies could be defined as sets of decisions oriented to shape or influence the education system. In this view, the state is a key player in the shaping of educational policies but not the only one (the role of the civil society and private sector needs to be examined). Furthermore, the “policy process” is a complex, multi-sited and differentiated phenomenon. Ball and his colleagues´ perspective on policy is useful here. He argues that it is necessary to examine policy initiatives as texts, enactments and discourse (Ball 1993). Conceptualizing policy as “text” implies interpreting policy as “textual interventions”, as multifaceted codifications produced via compromises, struggles (Ball 1993). Understanding policy as text also draws our attention to the ways in which these texts are “decoded”, interpreted and read by policy actors (such as head teachers, teachers, and students) (Ball 1993, Braun et al 2010). The concept “policy enactment” refers to policy actors’ interpretations of policy texts, which are forged “in relation to their history, experiences, skills, resources and context” (Ball 1993:11). However, policy actors “do policy” within historic and moving discursive boundaries, within which they can interpret and read educational policy. Policy translations take place within Discourse, with a capital D (in Foucauldian terms); within discursive formations. Nonetheless they are neither coherent nor homogeneous. Understanding policy as discourse demands that we look at policy and how it “exercises power through the production of `truth`, and `knowledge`” (Ball 1993: 14).

Method

In Argentina, few analyses have attempted to examine different aspects of the knowledge production on educational policy (see Palamidessi et al 2011, and Tello and Mainardes 2012). However, none of them have looked at current policy research traditions and the ways in which they conceptualize policy and policies. To fill this gap, a systematic review of education policy publications was carried out. In developing a comprehensive review of research and in considering time and resource constraints, and access and availability of literature, this study employs the following parameters in sampling literature for review: (i) Argentinean studies with a broadly sociological approach, including studies primarily classified as anthropological and educational studies; (ii) research conducted between 2000 and 2013; (iii) analyses on secondary schooling; (iv) studies focused on policies aiming at increasing school attendance, improving academic achievement and learning (the Argentinean “inclusion” policy agenda revolves around these concerns; and v) different types of scholarly productions: books, peer-reviewed journal articles, and official reports. Sources were identified by key informants in the field, and by different types of searches (such as looking for relevant material using an academic search engine -Google scholar-, and visiting websites of international and national educational policy knowledge producers). After identifying potentially relevant publications, we selected a total of 178 publications that seemed to fulfill our search criteria. A database with basic information (such as bibliographic information, abstract, key aims, theoretical and methodological approaches, and key findings) on each publication was elaborated and assessed in detailed. A final total of 119 publications complied with all our search criteria.

Expected Outcomes

From the analysis of the publications, three policy research traditions were defined: the “educational policy as policy documents” tradition; the “doing policy by school actors” tradition; and the “policy effects” tradition. The majority of the publications belonged to the last two categories. They are descriptive and elude explicit theoretical definitions of the “state”, the “policy process” and “policies”. The first tradition of studies mainly focuses on policy texts (mainly national laws and federal resolutions). Research examining “policy enactment” has paid attention to how different policy actors have re-signified policy texts in particular contexts. These studies look at variety of policy settings (such as provincial governments and schools). Qualitative methods are paramount. The last research tradition focuses on the educational effects of variety of policies and maps levels of school attendance, achievement and material inequalities across regions and schools. Quantitative data analyses are dominant. Despite particularities, research traditions share a common (and in general implicit) understanding of the policy process. The great majority assumes that educational policies are the result of struggles and conflicts between different actors, interests and interpretations. They shared a complex view on the policy process – departing from funciontalist approaches still dominant among traditional policy researchers in countries such as the UK and the USA (Apple 2013, Gunter 2013). Furthermore, the majority of the analyses follow what we call a “state research agenda” due to its focus on the state´s actions and priorities. In so doing, they apply concepts produced by the state to define their actions, target population and expected effects. Evidence of this is the absence of “theory” or theoretical approaches in the majority of the studies. These research traditions also share some blind spots. For instance, they exclude from their analysis non-state actors (such as unions, social movements, non- governmental organizations, and business).

References

Acuña, C. 2008. Lecturas sobre el Estado y las políticas públicas: Retomando el debate de ayer para fortalecer el actual. Buenos Aires: Jefatura de Gabinete de Ministros de la Nación. Apple, M. 2013. Between traditions: Stephen Ball and the critical sociology of education. London Review of Education. 11(3): 206-217 Ball, S. 2013. Foucault, power and education. London: Routledge. Ball, S. 1993. "What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes." Discourse 13(2): 10-17. Bourdieu, P. 1994. “Rethinking the state: Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field”. Sociological Theory 12(1): 1-18. Braun, A., Maguire, M. and Ball, S. 2010. "Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: examining policy, practice and school positioning." Journal of Education Policy 25(4): 547-560. Braun, A., Ball, S. and Maguire, M. 2010. "Policy enactments in schools introduction: towards a toolbox for theory and research." Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 32(4): 581-583 Gunter, H. 2013. On not researching school leadership: the contribution of S. J. Ball. London Review of Education.11(3): 218-228. Oszlak, O. and O'Donnell, M. 1981. Estado y políticas estatales en América Latina: hacia una estrategia de investigación. Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES). Palamidessi, M., Suasnábar, C. y Gorostiaga, J. (eds.). 2011. Políticas educativas y producción de conocimiento en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Novedades Educativas. Stevens, P. 2007. “Researching Race/Ethnicity and Educational Inequality in English Secondary Schools: A Critical Review of the Research Literature between 1980 and 2005.” Review of Educational Research 77: 147–185. Tello, C. y Mainardes, J. 2012. "La posición epistemológica de los investigadores en Política Educativa: debates teóricos en torno a las perspectivas pos-estructuralista, neo-marxista y pluralista". Revista Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas. Available on line http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/988?lang=es Zeller, N. (ed.). 2007. Marco conceptual metodológico para el estudio de políticas educativas. Buenos Aires: Dirección de Investigaciones. Instituto Nacional de la Administración Pública. Subsecretaría de la Gestión Pública.

Author Information

Analia Meo (presenting / submitting)

CONSEJO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS Y TECNICAS

Ciudad de Buenos Aires

Cora Steinberg

Sociology

CABA

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.