Objective:

The purpose of this research is to investigate and compare how policy enactment varies in different country, institutional, and disciplinary contexts, and how policy actors perceive educational reforms within Chinese and England universities. Therefore, this research will conduct two specific institutional case studies, one focusing on the examination of curriculum reform at two departments in University E in England, and the other will scrutinise curriculum reform within the corresponding two departments in University C in China. These policy reforms will be examined as discursive processes, with a particular emphasis on policy enactment. Overall, these case studies aim to thoroughly explore the nuanced aspects of policy enactment within diverse cultural, institutional, and disciplinary contexts. Additionally, this study will frame leadership as a type of actorhood within the context of policy enactment, investigating the roles played by diverse leadership styles in the policy enactment process and its associated reforms.

Research Questions

RQ1: How do national, institutional and departmental contexts influence the process of policy enactment and related reforms in Chinese and English universities? 

RQ2:  What are the departmental policy actor constellations and practiced leadership styles? 

RQ3:  How do the department policy actors influence policy enactment and reform processes?

RQ4:  What insights can be drawn from cross-national context observations to advance the theory of policy as a discourse and theoretical conceptualizations of educational leadership, policy actorhood, agency, and policy change?

Theoretical framework:

Ball (1997), a prominent scholar in critical policy analysis, underscored the significance of language, power, and politics in the policy analysis process, emphasising their influence on policy development and enactment of policies in the realm of education and beyond. Furthermore, Ball (1997) also posited that policy transcends mere textual rules and regulations; rather, it assumes a pivotal role as a discourse that fundamentally constructs meaning and reality, reflects particular worldviews and ideologies, and shapes human behavior. Therefore, the examination of policy discourse holds paramount importance as it significantly influences an institution’s capacity to enact policies in alignment with its intended objectives (Power and Taylor, 2021). In other words, discourse informs the development of the policies and can influence their ultimate enactment (Ball, 2015).

Policy enactment bridges the gap between policy intentions and tangible outcomes, serving as an indispensable component of the policy process (Reale and Seeber, 2013). Without proper enactment, policies are merely theoretical concepts that are unable to produce the desired effects (Rindova and Courtney, 2020). However, it has been argued that diverse policy contexts, including various country and institutional governance regimes, exert considerable influence on policy enactment. This is supported by Ball et al. (2012) who contended that external contexts, such as pressures and expectations from broader local and national policy matters, wield considerable influence as determinants of the policy enactment process.

Additionally, the policy enactment process also acknowledges the crucial role played by various actors in shaping how policies are put into practice. Ball et al.’s (2011) empirical research, which focused on four schools and identified a spectrum of seven distinct policy actors: narrators, entrepreneurs, outsiders, transactors, enthusiasts and translators, critics, and receivers. Nevertheless, it has been argued that various additional actor types may emerge in divergent contexts and circumstances (Hilpert, 2021). For example, in university settings, these actors encompass leaders, lecturers, administrators, and students, each offering distinct interpretations of policies and exhibiting varying degrees of autonomy in their enactment. 

Overall, this study, grounded in Ball et al.’s (2012) theoretical framework concerning policy enactment, seeks to investigate policy enactment across these multiple dimensions and elucidate the influence exerted by adaptable leadership styles on the landscape of educational reforms.

This study is grounded in the interpretative philosophical framework, underpinning its approach to exploring complex human behavior and social phenomena through the lens of subjective meanings and social frameworks (Chowdhury and Shil, 2021). The adoption of this interpretive perspective aligns harmoniously with the research’s objectives of understanding the multifaceted reality perceived by diverse policy actors. Consequently, a qualitative approach has been chosen due to its suitability for a comprehensive exploration of participants’ unique insights into policy enactment and reform processes (Creswell, 2013). The cornerstone of the research strategy lies in the implementation of a case study design. This research will conduct two specific institutional case studies, one focusing on the examination of curriculum reform at two departments in University E in England, and the other will scrutinise curriculum reform within the corresponding two departments in University C in China. Furthermore, this research will employ a multi-faceted approach, beginning with a comprehensive document analysis of policy artefacts related to ongoing educational reforms in the selected universities. Subsequently, interviews will be conducted with key policy actors at different levels, including university staff involved in a recent study programme reform, faculty leaders responsible for teaching and learning, directors of studies within departments and unit convenors. By doing these, differences and similarities in the policy enactment process will be compared and contextualised in different HE governance regimes, institutional cultures, and disciplinary contexts. In particular, the focus of the analysis would be on educational leaders and presence of different leadership styles and how they influence other departmental policy actors and the policy enactment process overall.

This research makes significant contributions by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the localised processes of policy mediation and enactment within the loosely-coupling university settings, thereby complementing Ball et al.’s (2012) prior research which is primarily conducted within England schools. Moreover, it enriches the knowledge of the distinct roles assumed by university policy actors, highlighting their heightened agency compared to school system counterparts and their impact on policy enactment within the university context. Notably, this research extends Ball et al’s (2012) work by examining how various factors, including country, institutional, and disciplinary dimensions, shape policy enactment across diverse nations, transcending a singular focus on the English context. Therefore, this thesis contributes to the advancement of micro-level comparative studies between China and England, offering new insights into the policy enactment process and its relation to educational leadership styles in higher education institutions. Furthermore, these insights are firmly rooted in the unique characteristics of both the Chinese and England contexts, thereby theorising the framework and discourse of educational policy and leadership through both Chinese and England perspectives.

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(3), pp. 257-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192970230302. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., and Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: doing policy work in schools, Discourse (Abingdon, England), 32(4), pp. 625-639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601565 Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., and Braun, A. (2012) How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools, 1(148), pp. 175-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185 Ball, S. J. (2015) What is policy? 21 years later: reflections on the possibilities of policy research, Discourse (Abingdon, England), 36(3), pp. 306-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1015279 Chowdhury, A., and Shil, N. C. (2021) Thinking ‘qualitative’ through a case study: Homework for a researcher, American Journal of Qualitative Research, 5(2), pp. 190-210. Creswell, J. (2014) Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed). Harlow: Pearson Education. Hilpert, U. (2021) Spatial evolution in the light of innovative transformation: the impact of policies and institutions in divergent situations, European Planning Studies, 29(9), pp. 1581-1588. Power, S., and Taylor, C. (2021) School exclusions in Wales: policy discourse and policy enactment, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 26(1), pp. 19-30. Reale, E., and Seeber, M. (2013) Instruments as empirical evidence for the analysis of Higher Education policies, Higher education, 65(1), pp. 135-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9585-5 Rindova, V., and Courtney, H. (2020) To shape or adapt: Knowledge problems, epistemologies, and strategic postures under Knightian uncertainty, Academy of Management Review, 45(4), pp. 787-807.