This paper presents the final conclusions of a large qualitative project analysing the complex dynamics emerging from the interactions between global and local actors in policymaking processes in education. It follows the perspective of earlier research that while taking ‘the process of globalisation for granted’ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004. P. 4) have a context-focused perspective, as it is the case of researchers analysing policy transfer, borrowing, and lending.

More specifically it analyses how references to international organizations (such as the OECD and EU), their perceived tools of assessment and guidance (such as PISA and Bologna Declaration), and practices of other countries are used in the discussions about education in Portugal. In other words, I analysed externalisations to world situations (Schriewer, 1990) in the discussions about education in the Portuguese parliament and print media.

Portugal is the context of this study for two main reasons. Firstly, a broad analysis of the uses of international references in education discussions remains scarce and is non-existent regarding the Portuguese parliamentary context. Secondly, I found it interesting that, unlike many other countries and regions already analysed in earlier research, PISA and its results were not incorporated in the education discussions until later rounds of the survey (after 2005), which led me to wonder if other international elements were used by political and social actors in education discussions, what were they, and why were they chosen. I focus, more specifically, on the context of the Portuguese parliamentary debates and print media articles within the timeframe of 2001 - 2018 because a) the parliament, is the main context for policy actors to perform to their policy opponents and to the wider national audience (Ilie, 2017) and they are open access; and b) the media are the main venue for citizens to get informed about what happens in the world. It brings to the public, policy issues and a sense that they need to be addressed, influencing public opinion (Luhmann, 1996). 

This analysis is made through a theoretical framework that departs from complexity thinking (e.g. Cilliers, 1998) and systems theory (e.g. Luhmann, 1995, 1996; Baraldi et al., 2021) as onto-epistemological stand point of departure and that simultaneously uses complexity thinking as a tool that promotes de integration of multiple streams approach (Kingdon, 2003), epistemic governance framework (Alasuutari & Qadir, 2019) and thematisation theory (Saperas, 1987; Luhmann, 1996) in the analysis to externalisations to international elements in the Portuguese education discussions.

Multiple streams approach provides an effective theoretical tool to analyse the dynamic process of policymaking and to understand how different actors in the Portuguese parliament utilise references to international elements within each of these streams during political struggles in the attempt of opening policy windows and initiate policy change.

Epistemic governance framework is especially useful in the investigation of why and how parliamentary policymakers choose certain international elements at specific moments and what are the contextual factors affecting these choices.

Thematization theory is used to analyse external references in the Portuguese print media’s discussion of education. This theory is fruitful to explore how externalisations bring to the argument sources of authority that help to bring to the public specific education themes, narrowing down the possibilities of ways how education can be seen and interpreted by the public.

These theories share an understanding of social systems and the processes within them, as being complex and non-linear (Capano, 2009, p. 8). Complexity thinking incorporates a vast number of theories and concepts from diverse research disciplines and enables looking into the interactions and dynamics between the elements of a system to understand complexities that are manifested at the system level (Cilliers, 1998, p.2-3). 

The central questions of this study are: Q1 - What are the factors affecting the choice of the international references used in the discussion of education? Q2 - Why and how are international references being used in discussions focused on education in the Portuguese parliament and print media? Q3 - How do multiple theoretical perspectives contribute to understanding the use of externalisations to world situations in education policy processes? The data consist of peer-reviewed articles discussing the impacts of PISA in the choice of reference societies (N=22), parliamentary debates discussing education themes (about 3000 pages), print media articles (N= 135) and, as secondary data, the Programme of the XVII Portuguese Government (2005-2009). The timeframe considered was 2001-2018. And applied qualitative content analysis (Schreier, 2014), rhetorical analysis (Edwards et al., 2004; Leach, 2011) and frame analysis (Entman, 1993) as research methods for to analyse the data.

My main argument in this study is that international elements constitute useful sources of authority that are used by social and political actors as strategic tools for the (de-)legitimation of policy ideas and proposals that are struggling to achieve the necessary consensus for the initiation of social change. This exercise’s ultimate goal is to manage the policy process’s contingency by reducing its complexity. However, in the Portuguese context it seems that the frequent use of the same international elements by different actors, often advocating contradictory ideas and proposals, has sustained the complexity of the policymaking process, leading to the failure of several attempts to advance comprehensive reform plans – as was the case with proposals related to teachers’ assessment instruments by both the XVII Government (2005–2009) and the XIX Government (2011–2015). This study therefore contributes to the understanding that processes of education policymaking are more complex than is often assumed, and that contrary to the original policymakers’ intentions, attempts to reduce this complexity can actually increase it.

Alasuutari, P., & Qadir, A. (2019). Epistemic governance: Social change in the modern world. Palgrave. Baraldi, C., Corsi, G., & Esposito, E. (2021). Unlocking Luhmann: A keyword introduction to systems theory. Bielefeld University Press. Capano, G. (2009). Understanding policy change as an epistemological and theoretical problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1), 7-31. DOI: 10.1080/13876980802648284 Cilliers, P.(1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. Taylor & Francis. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. Ilie, C. (2017). Parliamentary Debates. In R. Wodak and B. Forchtner (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and politics (pp. 309–325). Routledge. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Longman. Leach, J. (2011). Rhetorical analysis. In M.W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 208–226). Sage Publications. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press. Luhmann, N. (1996). The reality of the mass media. Stanford University Press. Saperas, E. (1987). Os efeitos cognitivos da comunicação de massas: As recentes investigações em torno dos efeitos da comunicação de massas - 1970/1980. [The cognitive effects of mass communication: Recent research on the effects of mass communication – 1970–1980]. Edições ASA. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). Sage. Schriewer, J. (1990). The method of comparison and the need for externalization: Methodological criteria and sociological concepts. In J. Schriewer, & B. Holmes (Eds.), Theories and methods in comparative education (pp. 25–83). Peter Lang. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers College Press.