The rapidly evolving and increasingly complex societal context in which we live places significant demands on educational systems to continuously adapt, leading to frequent education reforms. However, research indicates that even when these reforms are carefully planned and well-resourced (Broomley et al., 2023), their implementation remains challenging and does not always produce the intended impact (Sahlberg, 2023). 

In a complex system such as education (Bray & Jiang, 2014), success depends not only on the design, importance, or price tag of a reform but also on how that reform is interpreted, negotiated, and enacted by those involved (de Jong, 2008). Therefore, instead of focusing solely on policy-making or policy implementation, we adopt the perspective of policy appropriation, which examines how social actors take something external to their context—such as a policy document—and make sense of it (Levinson et al., 2020). This process is inherently one of meaning-making and negotiation, shaped by the beliefs, knowledge, motives, experiences, and roles of various actors, as well as the institutional constraints and social commitments they bring (Burdett & O’Donnell, 2016). As a result, the appropriation of the same policy document can lead to a wide range of practices, rules, and tools, some of which may hinder or jeopardize change, particularly when policies are vague, misaligned with local realities, or lack adequate support. Research shows that applying an integrity lens can be particularly useful for understanding the factors that shape policy appropriation (Milovanovitch, 2025).

Specifically, through integrity assessments relying on the INTES (Integrity of Education Systems; OECD, 2018) framework, conducted across more than 11 countries with nearly 1300 stakeholders between 2010 and 2022, we found that most appropriation strategies remain within the boundaries of constructive adaptation. However, some proved problematic, as they involved the misuse of ordinary educational or administrative processes to secure an educational deliverable in ways that contradicted established rules, standards, or principles (Milovanovitch, 2025). These assessments identified nine such practices, which we defined as ‘integrity violations.’ Moreover, the INTES results suggest that while all problematic practices follow the broad sequence of motive, opportunity, and illicit action, their emergence is shaped by complex interactions between individuals and their professional environments (Milovanovitch, 2018; Kovacs Cerovic et al., 2018). These interactions lead individuals to adopt one of two identities: gatekeepers, who misuse their authority to control access to educational deliverables, or beneficiaries, who obtain them through illicit means (Milovanovitch, 2025).

While INTES has proven valuable in identifying integrity-breaching practices and the mechanisms through which educational environments create motives and opportunities for these practices, we argue that its methodological approach has several limitations. Although While INTES tools are well-suited for providing evidence-based recommendations to policymakers, their reliance on standard policy analysis methods—such as administrative data, large-scale datasets, and structured stakeholder consultations—rooted in a positivist perspective, may not be ideal for addressing sensitive issues like integrity violations, especially in contexts marked by power asymmetry, such as education. Furthermore, this approach often fails to capture the complexity of factors shaping these problematic practices, including the influence of beliefs, experiences, knowledge, and roles of different educational participants in the process.

To extend the reach and relevance of the integrity lens to the grassroots level, we developed and tested a complementary methodological approach, which allows for the exploration of how different educational participants interpret problematic policy appropriation strategies. We call this approach the Analysis of Integrity-Related Education Narratives (AIREN). In this paper, we present its conceptual and methodological foundations and discuss its contributions, as well as its limitations, based on experiences from a multi-country study on integrity in inclusive education.

The AIREN approach integrates a socio-cultural perspective on policy appropriation, a narrative research approach, and the conceptual tools of INTES to examine integrity in education reform. AIREN is designed to: - Move beyond the division between policy-making and implementation, recognising that education policies are not simply imposed from above but are continuously interpreted and negotiated by stakeholders within specific contexts. This reflects the concept of policy appropriation. - Challenge fragmented approaches to policy analysis by foregrounding narratives, offering deeper insights into policy appropriation from the perspectives of different educational participants. - Serve as a transformative methodology that promotes participatory meaning-making and supports the co-production of knowledge on existing conditions and pathways to more integrity-supportive environments. AIREN employs the activity-meaning system design to analyse how individuals in different social positions construct meaning around shared experiences (Daiute, 2014). This informs research questions, stakeholder selection, and narrative expressions that allow participants to shift perspectives while considering temporal and spatial contexts relevant to integrity in education reform. The framework aligns with INTES (OECD, 2018) by adopting the concept of integrity violations—intentional actions by education participants that breach rules, standards, and principles for personal or collective gain. It also draws on the nine forms of integrity violations identified in INTES studies and applies INTES’ focus on how the educational environment shapes conditions that enable these violations (Milovanovitch, 2018). Insights into AIREN’s strengths and limitations come from a study on integrity in inclusive education in Armenia, Kazakhstan, Serbia, and Ukraine. The study unfolded in three stages: 1. Mapping the policy context – Structured questionnaires collected insights from national experts on integrity and inclusive education policies, establishing a baseline for understanding policy framing. 2. Mapping integrity violations – Eight focus groups (77 participants, including parents, teachers, policymakers, and civil society representatives) examined problematic practices in the appropriation of inclusive education policies. 3. Narrating integrity violations – In three-day workshops in Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Serbia, 55 participants developed 107 narratives through dynamic storytelling exercises, including writing and revising stories on integrity violations, composing letters to peers, and completing unfinished narratives (Daiute & Kovacs Cerović, 2017).

The strengths and limitations of the AIREN approach, which we will discuss, are based on our study of integrity in inclusive education. These will be illustrated through qualitative content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs) of focus group discussions and plot analysis and character mapping (Daiute, 2014) of narratives from dynamic storytelling workshops. We designed AIREN to complement the integrity-focused INTES framework by identifying, analysing, and monitoring integrity violations while accounting for institutional and human complexities. One of its key strengths, emerging from this initial phase of our work, is its ability to capture integrity violations in full institutional and human detail, uncovering the motivations, relationships, and decision-making processes that shape problematic appropriation strategies (Sabic-El-Rayess & Heyneman, 2020). Another important feature of AIREN is its applicability to emerging policies. Integrity risks often arise in early implementation phases before corrupt networks become entrenched (Hallak & Poisson, 2007). AIREN proved particularly effective in these contexts, as participants were more open to discussing integrity concerns while making sense of evolving policies (Levinson et al., 2011). By integrating diverse data formats from multiple educational stakeholders and employing a structured, transparent data collection design, AIREN ensures credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. While plot analysis and character mapping were particularly valuable in our study, AIREN remains flexible, allowing for different analytical approaches depending on the research questions explored. We also emphasise multiperspectivity, ensuring that diverse stakeholders contribute to research findings rather than privileging a single viewpoint. Finally, our findings validate the core assumptions of the INTES framework while extending its functional model. AIREN introduces a tool for more granular exploration, revealing vulnerable areas—contexts where integrity violations could emerge but have not yet materialised. This shift from reaction to prevention offers new pathways for strengthening integrity mechanisms in education reform.

Bray, M., Jiang, K. (2014). Comparing Systems. In: Bray, M., Adamson, B., Mason, M. (eds) Comparative Education Research. CERC Studies in Comparative Education, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05594-7_5 Bromley, P., Furuta, J., Kijima, R., Overbey, L., Choi, M., & Santos, H. (2023). Global determinants of education reform, 1960 to 2017. Sociology of Education, 96(2), 149-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407221146773 Burdett, N., & O’Donnell, S. (2016). Lost in translation? The challenges of educational policy borrowing. Educational Research, 58(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1168678 Daiute, C. (2014). Narrative inquiry: A dynamic approach. SAGE Publications, Inc. Daiute, C., & Kovács-Cerović, T. (2017). Minority teachers – Roma in Serbia – narrate education reform. Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade. de Jong, E. J. (2008). Contextualizing Policy Appropriation: Teachers’ Perspectives, Local Responses, and English-only Ballot Initiatives. Urban Review 40, 350-370. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x Hallak, J., & Poisson, M. (2007). Corrupt schools, corrupt universities: What can be done? IIEP. Kovacs Cerovic, T., Milovanovitch, M., & Jovanovic, O. (2018). Education integrity as a barrier to inclusion: Evidence from Armenia, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Ukraine. ECER 2018, Inclusion and Exclusion, Resources for Educational Research? Bolzano: European Educational Research Association. Levinson, B. (2011). Toward an anthropology of (democratic) citizenship education. In B. Levinson & M. Pollock (Eds.), A Companion to the Anthropology of Education (pp. 279-298). Wiley-Blackwell. Levinson, B. A., Winstead, T., & Sutton, M. R. (2020). An anthropological approach to education policy as a practice of power: Concepts and methods. In G. Fan & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Studies (pp. 363-379). Springer Nature. Milovanovitch, M. (2018). Integrity of Education Systems (INTES): A methodology for sector assessment. OECD Publishing. Milovanovitch, M. (2025). An inclusive classification of illicit practices in education and higher education. In E. Denisova-Schmidt, P. Altbach, & H. de Wit (Eds.). Handbook on corruption in higher education, Edward Elgar Publishing, forthcoming. Sabic-El-Rayess, A., & Heyneman, S. (2020, December 17). Education and corruption. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-1637 Sahlberg, P. (2023). Trends in global education reform since the 1990s: Looking for the right way. International Journal of Educational Development, 98(1), 102748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102748