2013-Topic4-InterpretivePolitical

Topic 4Perspectives in Policy Studies:

Interpretive-Political Perspective

PEDU 6209

Policy Studies in Education

David Easton defines public policy as “the authoritative allocation of values for the whole society.” (Easton, 1953, p. 129)

Interpretive Perspective in Public Policy Study

Stephen Ball indicates that “Policy is clearly a matter of the ‘authoritative allocation of values’; policies are the operational statements of values, ‘statements of prescriptive intent’ (Kogan 1975 p.55). But values do not float free of their social context. We need to ask whose values are validated in policy, and whose are not. Thus, the authoritative allocation of values draws our attention to the centrality of power and control in the concept of policy’ (Prunty 1985 p.135). Policies project images of an ideal society (education policies project definitions of what counts as education).” (Ball, 1990, p. 3)


Authoritative allocation of values on

EMI, CMI, or what else

What is Lifelong Learning?Which versions of Lifelong Learning has been authoritatively endorsed ?

Whose Lifelong Learning has been authoritatively legitimatized?

Meanings and Values implied in Educational Vouchers

Neo-liberalism and consumersim endorsed in Educational Vouchers

Cult of market force legitimatized in Educational Vouchers

In another occasion, Ball specifies his own approach to policy study that “in current writing on policy issue I actually inhabit two very different conceptualization of policy. …I will call these policy as text and policy as discourse. …The point I am moving to is that policy is not one or the other, but both: they are ‘implicit in each other’.” (1994, p.15)


Dvora Yanow defines “public policy as texts that are interpreted as they are enacted by implementers, (and)…as texts that are ‘read’ by various stakeholder groups.” (2000, p. 17)

Therefore, “an interpretive approach to policy analysis …is one that focuses on the meanings of policy, on values, feelings, or beliefs they express, and on the processes by which those meanings are communicated to and ‘read’ by various audiences.


Basic assumptions of interpretive approach to the study of public policy: Public policy is not construed as self-defined

phenomenon and/or natural phenomenon treated in natural science, but is taken as human artifact deliberated and constructed by human beings with specific intents and particular meanings. Accordingly, policy studies are research efforts to identified the meanings and values allocated, imputed attributed to a particular policy phenomenon by all parties concerned.


Basic assumptions of interpretive approach to the study of public policy: Since the primary meaning-constructor (or more

appropriately put ‘author’) of public policy is the modern state. As by definition the modern state is the sovereign power and authority over a definitive territory and its residents, hence public policy studies are research efforts to investigate what are the intents, meanings or values that the state has ascribed to a particular public policies and why.


Basic assumptions of interpretive approach to the study of public policy: Furthermore, in pluralistic and democratic

political system, the author of public policy is not confined to the sovereign state. Various interested parties may also attribute different or even contradictory meanings to a same policy phenomenon and take different or even antagonistic stances towards a policy prescription.


Basic assumptions of interpretive approach to the study of public policy: Accordingly, public policy study is research

efforts striving to explore what and how meanings and values are

written / encoded into policy “texts” by the state or the government.

to explore what and how meanings and values are read / decoded from public policy “texts” by interest groups / interpretive communities, i.e. hermeneutic and ethnographic studies of interpretations of public policy by social groups.


Basic assumptions of interpretive approach to the study of public policy: Accordingly, public policy study is research

efforts striving … to explore what authoritative meanings and values

are emerged and constituted amid these diverse interpretations of public policy.

to expose the politicking processes via which authoritative meanings and values are constructed within the political context of a public policy.


Georg H. von Wright’s Two Traditions of Inquiry

Intentional explanation: Explaining the State’s Acts

1916-2003

Georg H. von Wright’s Two Traditions of Inquiry “It is therefore misleading to say that

understanding versus explanation marks the difference between two types of scientific intelligibility. But one could say that the intentional or nonintentional character of their objects marks the difference between two types of understanding and of explanation.” (von Wright, 1971, p.135)


Wright’s Two Traditions of Inquiry… Distinction between causal and teleological

explanationsCausal explanation: It refers to the mode of explanation,

which attempt to seek the sufficient and/or necessary conditions (i.e. explanans) which antecede the phenomenon to be explained (i.e. explanandum). Causal explanations normally point to the past. ‘This happened, because that had occurred’ is the typical form in language.” (von Wright, 1971, p. 83) It seeks to verify the antecedent conditions for an observed natural phenomenon. This mode of explanation can further be differentiated into

• Deductive-nomological explanation• Inductive-probabilistic explanation


Wright’s Two Traditions of Inquiry… Distinction between causal and teleological

explanations Teleological explanation: It refers to the mode of

explanation, which attempt to reveal the goals and/or intentions, which generate or motivate the explanadum (usually an action to be explained) to take place. “Teleological explanations point to the future. ‘This happened in order that that should occur.’” (von Wright, 1971, p. 83) This mode of explanation can be differentiated into • Intentional explanation• Rational-choice explanation• Functional explanation (Quasi-teleological explanation)


Re-orientating the mode of explanation in policy studies: Intentional explanation has been advocated by some

social scientists as the typical mode of explanation used in social sciences. In fact, as Jon Elster underlines, its feature "distinguishes the social sciences from the natural sciences." (Elster, 1983, p. 69)


Re-orientating the mode of explanation in policy studies: However, to inquire into the intentions and

subjective meanings of actors and groups of actors in public policy, for examples statesmen, politicians, frontline policy service deliverers, policy service recipients, political parties, interest groups, etc. Policy researchers encounter one of the central methodological problems in social science. This aporia has be aptly depicted by Max Weber as follow:


Re-orientating the mode of explanation in policy studies:

"Sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with causal explanation of its course and consequence." (Weber, 1978, p.4)


What is meaning? a phenomenological investigation Alfred Schutz, one of the prominent

phenomenological sociologists of the twentieth century suggests in his book The Phenomenology of Social World that

“Meaning is a certain way of directing one’s gaze at an item of one’s experience. This item is thus ‘selected out’ and rendered discrete by a reflexive Act. Meaning indicates, therefore, a peculiar attitude on the part of Ego toward the flow of its own duration.” (Schutz, 1967, p. 42)

Policy Studies as Interpretative Studies of Policy Meanings

What is meaning? … This definition may be discerned with the three

constituent concepts in phenomenology, namely, attention, intention and protention. In other words, meanings are made up of the attention, intention and protention that the Ego has attribute to an object in the concrete and discrete world. Attention refers the act of one’ consciousness in

“selecting out” an object from the concrete and discrete world

Intention refers the act of one’s consciousness in forming a perception and attitude towards the object and retaining it and recalling it in the future


What is meaning? … This definition may be discerned with the three

constituent concepts …. Protention refers to the act of consciousness of

formulating an action plan (a project) to fulfill one anticipation towards the object


Schutz’s concept of action By applying the conceptual apparatus derived

from phenomenological philosophy, Schutz proposes to clarify Max Weber’s conception of subjective meaning of social action in interpretive sociology in the following way.


Schutz’s concept of action ….. Schutz proposes to clarify Max Weber’s

conception of subjective meaning of social action in interpretive sociology in the following way.

“Now we are in a position to state that what distinguishes action from behavior is that action is the execution of a projected act. And we can immediately proceed to our next step: the meaning of any action is its corresponding projected act. In saying this we are giving clarity to Max Weber’s vague concept of the ‘orientation of an action’. An action, we submit, is oriented toward its corresponding projected act.” (Schutz, 1967, p. 61)


Schutz’s concept of meaning-context By applying the constituent concepts of

phenomenology, Schutz further suggests that meanings forged within one’s Ego are “configurated” into a whole, which Schutz called “meaning-context”. By meaning-context, Schutz characterized it as follows …


Schutz’s concept of meaning-context ……By meaning-context, Schutz characterized it as

follows“Let us define meaning-context formally: We say that

our lived experience E1, E2, …, En, stand in a meaning-context if and only if, once they have been lived through in separate steps, they are then constituted into a synthesis of a high order, becoming thereby unified objects of monothetic attention.” (Schutz, 1967, p.75)


Schutz’s concept of meaning-context… Schutz indicates that meaning-context derived

within one’s inner time consciousness bears numbers of structural features. (Schutz, 1967, p. 74-78)Unity: Though intentional acts and/or fulfillment-act

various meaning-endowing experiences are unified and integrated into coherent whole within the Ego. Hence, meaning-context generated from meaning-endowing experiences also bears the internal structure of unity and coherence.


Schutz’s concept of meaning-context… Schutz indicates that meaning-context bears

numbers of structural features….. Continuity: As lived experiences are set within the stream

of consciousness of duration (i.e. Durée), therefore, the meaning-context thereby derived is internally structured into a continuity of temporal ordering.

Hierarchy: Through her lived experiences in different spheres of the life-world, individual will congifurated various meaning-contexts for lived experiences in various spheres of life. And these complex meaning-contexts are structured in hierarchical order according to their degree of meaningfulness and significance.


Accordingly, interpretive policy studies can be construed as research efforts to investigate what are the attention, intention and protention that

the state granted to a policy phenomenon and/or issue;

what are the attention, intention and protention that interested parties within a policy arena attributed to the policy text produced by the state;

how these attentions, intentions and protentions are related to the meaning-context of the state and to those of the interested parties; and why.


Hermeneutic study of public policy “Hermeneutics is a discipline that has been primarily

concerned with the elucidation of rules for the interpretation of texts.” (Thompson, 1981, p.36)

Policy Studies as Hermeneutic Studies of Policy Texts

What is interpretation? “Interpretation … is an attempt to make clear, to make sense

of an object of study. This object must, therefore, be a text, or a text-analogue, which in some way is confused, incomplete, cloudy, seemingly contradictory in one way or another unclear. The interpretation aims to bring to light an underlying coherence or sense. …The object of a science of interpretation must thus have (a) sense (coherence and meaning) , distinguishable from its (b) expression, which is for or by (c) a subject.” (Taylor, 1994, p.181-182)

Policy as Text and Hermeneutic Study of Public Policy

What is interpretation? “When we speak of the ‘meaning’ of a given predicament, we

are using a concept which has the following articulation:Meaning is for or by a subject…Meaning is of something…Things only have meaning in a field, that is, in relation to the

meanings of other things.” (Taylor, 1994, p. 185-186)


What is interpretation? Dimension of linguistic meaning: “Meanings …. is for a

subject, of something, in a field. This distinguishes it from linguistic meaning which has a four- and not three-dimensional structure. Linguistic meaning is for subjects and in a field, but it is the meaning of signifiers and it is about a world of referent.” (Taylor, 1994, p.186)Meaning by and/for a subjectMeaning in a fieldMeaning of something

• Meaning of the signifier• Meaning about a world of referent


Signifier Referent

Meaning

Author

Reader

Field

Signifier Referent

Meaning

Author

Reader

Field

Meaning By

Meaning For

Meaning Of Meaning About

What is a Text? (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 145-164) "A Text is any discourse fixed by writing" (p.145) i.e. a fixation

of speech act by writing. Fixation enables the speech to be conserved, i.e. durability of textA text ‘divides the act of writing and the act of reading into two

sides, between which there is no communication. … The text thus produces a double eclipse of the reader and the writer.’ (p. 146-47)

Policy text can therefore be primarily conceived as the authoritative fixation of meanings by the government


What is a Text? (Ricoeur, 1981, p. 145-164) Hermeneutical Function of Distanciation (Ricoeur, 1981, p.

131-44) Text as language event and speech act

• Distanciation between language event and meaning• Articulation of meaning in language event is ‘the core of the whole

hermeneutic problem.’ (p. 134)Text as work

• Distanciation between text as the work and its authors• ‘Hermeneutics remains the art of discerning the discourse in the

work; but this discourse is only given in and through the structures of the work. Thus interpretation is the reply to the fundamental distanciation constituted by the objectification of man in work of discourse, an objectification comparable to that expressed in the products of his labour and his art.’ (P. 138)



131-44) Distanciation between act of writing and act of reading ‘The text must be able to…”decontextualize” itself in such a way

that it can be “recontextualise” in a new situation – as accomplished…by the act of reading.’ (p. 139)

Distanciation between the text and the reference and denotation of discourse

• The world the text: ‘Reference…distinguishes discourse from language, the latter has no relation with reality, its words returning to other words in the endless circle of the dictionary. Only discourse, we shall say, intends things, applies itself to reality, expresses the world.’ (p. 140)

• ‘The most fundamental hermeneutical problem … is to explicate the type of being-in-the world (life-world) unfolded in front of the text’. (p.141)



131-44) Four hermeneutic problems in policy-text study

• Hermeneutic problem of bridging the distanciation between policy texts and policy meanings and values

• Hermeneutic problem of bridging the distanciation between policy texts and authors’ (governmental) intents

• Hermeneutic problem of bridging the distanciation between policy texts and readers ‘reading of the texts

• Hermeneutic problem of bridging between the distanciation between the policy texts and their referencing world


Signifier Referent

Meaning

Author

Reader

Field

Policy Text

Policy Intents & Values

Policy Environment and Issue

Policy Makers

Policy Stakeholders

From texts to textuality The concept of textuality: Apart from retrieve the meanings

embedded in texts, hermeneutic study can also explore another dimension of texts, i.e. “the texture of texts, their form and organization” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 4). By introducing the concept of textuality into hermeneutic study, text analysis can then go beyond studying texts in linguistic forms (written or spoken) and explore texts, which take on multi-semiotic forms.

The concept of multi-semiotic textuality is especially significant in the age of mass communication and then the information age In the mass-communication age, the exemplar text of multi-semiotic

form is of course televisions. In the information age, literal texts have been further replace by

digital-imagery texts through computer-mediated-communication and in the internet.


From texts to textuality Dimensions of textuality of the policy text:

GenreFrameRhetoricNarrative


(To be discussed on Topic 6: Policy Making Process)

From texts to textuality As the concept of texuality is applied to policy

studies in the information age, it becomes apparent that analysis of policy text should extend beyond the analysis of the policy documents in its literal form and to analyze meanings and values embedded in policy texts in multi-semiotic forms, such as documentaries, commercials, and news footages in TV; and websites in Internet.


From texts to textuality and intertextuality The concept of intertextuality: It refers to the texture of

the text when it is set against its social and history contexts. In other words, “intertextuality implies ‘the insertion of history into the text and of this text into history’. (Kristeva, 1986, p. 39) By ‘the insertion of history into the text’, …text absorbs and is built out of texts from the past.” (Fairclough, 1992, p.102)

As the concept of intextuality is applied to policy studies, it implies that policy documents should be analyzed in conjunction synchronically with other current policy texts and/or diachronically with policy texts in the past.


Multi-lateral hermeneutic study of public policy The multi-lateral process of writing (encoding) and

reading (decoding) of policy texts (Ball, 1992) Multiple authors in the production processes of policy texts Multiple readers in the processes formulation and

implementation of policy texts


Multi-lateral hermeneutic study of public policy The multi-lateral process of writing (encoding) and

reading (decoding) of policy texts (Ball, 1992) Notions writerly and readerly texts:

The writerliness of policy texts refers to the flexibility built in policy texts which “invite the reader to ‘join-in’, to ‘co-operate’ and co-author’. (p. 11) In other words, it provides readers rooms to interpret or even re-write the policy texts.

The readerliness of policy text refers to the rigidity built in policy texts which provide “minimum of opportunity for creative interpretation by the reader(s).” (p.11)

Reciprocating, bargaining and interacting relationship between writers and readers of policy texts


(曾榮光， 2006)

Conception of interpretive communities in policy study (Yanow, 2000) Given the multi-lateral features in policy interpretations, policy

arguments are therefore involved multiple communities, each of which can have their own interpretations of the policy text and subsequently produce their own texts (in multi-semiotic forms) in relation to the policy argument.


artifacts

language, objects, acts

meaning(s)

values, beliefs, feelings

Figure 1.1 Meanings (values, beliefs, feelings) are embedded in policy artifacts (language, objects, acts) in a symbolic (representational) relationship.

artifacts


meaning(s)

values, beliefs, feelings

Figure 1.2 The use of artifacts maintains or changes their underlying meanings.

artifacts


meaning

meaning

meaning

meaning

meaning

Interpretivecommunity

interpretive community


interpretive community

Figure 1.4 Symbolic artifacts accommodate multiple meanings.


Reader

Signifier Referent

Meaning

Author

Interpretive community

Field

Policy Text





Conception of interpretive communities in policy study Hence, the starting point of interpretive inquiry into a particular

policy issue is to identify the various interpretive communities participate in the formulation and implementation processes of the policy.

The second step access the “local knowledge”, i.e. the definition of situation, knowledge at hand and system of relevance, produced by different interpretive communities. The access can be attained by means of document analysis, conversational interviews and participation observations with different interpretive communities.

By juxtaposing and mapping out the similarities and differences in the local knowledge produced by various interpretive communities with regard to the policy in point, the architecture of arguments constituted around the policy issue in point can be revealed.


Table 1.1 Steps in Interpretive Policy Analysis

1. Identify the artifacts (language, objects, acts) that are significant carriers of meaning for a given policy issue, as perceived by policy-relevant actors and interpretive communities

2. Identify communities of meaning/interpretation/speech/practice that are relevant to the policy issue under analysis

3. Identify the “discourses”: the specific meanings being communicated through specific artifacts and their entailments (in thought, speech and act)

4. Identify the points of conflict and their conceptual sources (affective, cognitive, and/or moral) that reflect different interpretations by different communities

Interventions/Actions5a. Show implications of different meanings/interpretations for policy

formulation and/or action5b. Show that differences reflect different ways of seeing5c. Negotiate/mediate/intervene in some other form to bridge differences

(e.g., suggest reformulation or reframing)

David Easton’s conception political system: Easton differentiates his conception of public policy as authoritative allocation of values into three components of a political system Input of political demands and supports Conversions of input into authoritative allocation of values Output of policy

Policy as Political Bargain and Compromise to Meaning & Value Conflicts

Gabriel A. Almond functional categorization of political system Input functions

Political socialization and recruitment Interest articulation Interest aggregationPolitical communication

Output functionsRule-makingRule-applicationRule adjudication


Dahl and Lindblom’s conception of political bargaining in polyarchy Robert Dahl’s of polyarchy

Two theoretical dimensions of democratization• Public contestation: It indicates “the extent of

permissible opposition, public contestation, or political competition” of the government. (Dahl, 1971, p. 4)

• Inclusiveness of participation: It indicates “the proportion of the population entitled to participate on a more or less equal plane in controlling and contesting the conduct of the government.” (Dahl, 1971, p. 4)


US & UK

HKSAR

PRC

Dahl and Lindblom’s conception of political bargaining in polyarchy Robert Dahl’s of polyarchy

The concept of polyarchy: “Polyarchy may be thought of as relatively (but incompletely) democratized regimes, or to put it in another way, polyarchy are regimes that have been substantially popularized and liberalized, that is, highly inclusive and extensively open to public contestation.” (Dahl, 1971, p. 8)


Dahl and Lindblom’s conception of political bargaining in polyarchy Social pluralism and political bargaining as necessary condition

of polyarchy Social pluralism: “Polyarchy requires a considerable degree of

social pluralism, that is, a diversity of social organizations with a large measure of autonomy with respect to one another.” (Dahl and Lindblom, 1992, P. 302)

Political bargaining as necessity for polyarchy in social pluralism: In social pluralism, “if leaders agree on everything they would have no need to bargain; if on the nothing, they could not bargain. Leaders bargain because they disagree and expect that further agreement is possible and will be profitable. …Hence, bargaining takes place because it is necessary, possible, and thought to be profitable.” (Dahl and Lindblom, 1992, p. 326)


Corporatism: Criticism on pluralism in policy studies Schmitter’s juxtaposition of concepts of pluralism and

corporatism “Pluralism can be defined as a system of interest representation in

which the constituent units are organized into an unspecified number of multiple, voluntary, competitive, nonhierarchically ordered and self determined ( as to type or scope of interest) categories which are not specifically licensed, recognized, subsidized, created or otherwise controlled in leadership selection or interest articulation by the state and which do not exercise a monopoly of representational activity within their respective categories. (Schmitter, 1979, p. 15)


Corporatism: Criticism on pluralism in policy studies Schmitter’s juxtaposition of concepts of pluralism and

corporatism “Corporatism can be defined as a system of interest representation

in which the constituent units are organized into a limited number of singular, compulsory, noncompetitive, hierarchically ordered and functionally differentiated categories, recognized or licensed (if not created) by the state and granted a deliberate representational monopoly within their respective categories in exchange for observing certain controls on their selection of leaders and articulation of demands and supports. (Schmitter, 1979, p. 13)


Corporatism: Criticism on pluralism in policy studies Liberal and authoritarian corporatism

Liberal corporatism: Liberal/societal corporatism refers to the kind of interest-mediation mechanism constituted by liberal democratic states mainly between interest organizations of the labor and the capital. It aims to construct a kind of welfare corporatism or welfare state within which two major interests namely the labor and the capital can work out some collaborations under the mediation of the state; e.g. Scandinavian welfare state and post-WWII welfare state in UK.


Corporatism: Criticism on pluralism in policy studies Liberal and authoritarian corporatism

Authoritarian corporatism: Authoritarian/state corporatism refers to the kind of interest-mediation mechanism of constructed by bureaucratic-authoritarian state among interest organizations licensed by the state. Within authoritarian corporatism, the state is more or less secluded from societal and political pressures and can absolve chosen interest groupings into the corporatism to legitimate and/or facilitate its ruling, e.g. authoritarian regimes established in south America in the 1960s; regimes in the 1970s in east Asia, especially the four little dragon.


Policy as State Apparatus in Resolving Societal Conflicts or Struggles (To be discussed in Topic 6)

Education Policy as text interpreted by actors, mediated and enacted by actors in institutional settings

(To be discussed in Topic 10-11)


END

Topic 4Perspectives in Policy Substance Study:

Interpretive-Political Perspective

2013-Topic4-InterpretivePolitical

Documents

Transcript of 2013-Topic4-InterpretivePolitical