Researching International Processes of Education Policy Formation: Conceptual and Methodological...

Research in Comparative and International Education Volume 7 Number 2 2012 www.wwwords.uk/RCIE

127 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2012.7.2.127

RESEARCH IN

EducationComparative & International

Researching International Processes of Education Policy Formation: conceptual and methodological considerations

D. BRENT EDWARDS Jr Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education, University of Maryland, College Park, USA

ABSTRACT This article elaborates one approach to conceptualizing and investigating international processes of education policy formation (IPEPF), which are dynamic, multi-‐level and processual in nature. This contribution is important because, although research is increasingly conducted on phenomena with such characteristics, extended discussions of how these processes are either conceptualized or researched are rare. This article engages with both issues. With regard to the latter, the article adapts and tailors to the phenomena of IPEPF a range of qualitative methodological strategies suggested by Miles and Huberman, and by Yin.

In this article, I discuss a number of issues related to conceptualizing and conducting research on what I term international processes of education policy formation (IPEPF, defined below). The purpose is to elaborate on the conceptual dimensions and methodological strategies related to undertaking research on policy production processes that include action across multiple levels (e.g. international, national, local) and among multiple types of actors (e.g. international development institutions, national policymakers and local program staff). Thus, the contribution of this article, and of the four articles in this issue of RCIE generally, is not that it presents findings on the outcomes of such research, but rather that it presents one approach to conceptualizing and investigating policy formation processes that are dynamic, multi-‐level and processual. Such a contribution is important because, although scholars increasingly conduct research on such phenomena, extended discussions of how these processes are conceptualized and researched are rare.[1] The present article engages with both issues. With regard to the latter, it adapts and tailors to the phenomena of IPEPF a range of case-‐study strategies suggested by Miles & Huberman (1994) and Yin (2003).

The discussion below draws from my present research and a study I carried out previously (see Edwards, forthcoming), both of which focus on processes of policy formation in El Salvador. Thus, in addition to discussing the way in which these methods apply to the research conducted from fall 2011 to summer 2012, I also draw examples from the prior application of these methods. This prior research focused on the process of education policy formation in El Salvador between 2003 and 2005 and, as will be shown, is a smaller-‐scale study that nests within the later, larger investigation.

Specifically, then, in what follows, I address five objectives. They are: (a) to flesh out the key terms used to define the phenomena of interest; (b) to summarize the history and context of the case of IPEPF which serves as the focus of the present study; (c) to state the

D. Brent Edwards Jr

128

underlying research questions; (d) to discuss the chosen methodology; and (e) to elaborate on several aspects of data collection and data analysis in relation to researching IPEPF. The final section summarizes the preceding sections and concludes by reflecting on the contribution that this article hopes to make.

Terminology

For the sake of clarity, it is necessary to provide a few definitions before proceeding with the discussion of conceptual and methodological issues. Importantly, how key terms are defined will help to establish exactly what is under study and, thus, the boundaries of what is to be researched. As will be shown, having clear definitions is also necessary to operationalize the analytic tools discussed later. The terms which I define and discuss below include IPEPF, actors, dynamics and influence. The literature on which I draw to define these terms derives, broadly speaking, from authors in the critical/political economy paradigm.

To begin with, the term IPEPF, or international processes of education policy formation, refers to specific phenomena -‐ namely those processes, characterized by the involvement of a range of domestic and international actors and forces, in which national political and governmental representatives (e.g. Ministry of Education [MINED]) engage in order to formulate or authorize an official policy text, whether it be an education system development plan, a reform strategy paper, a legal decree, or other form of official policy statement. Within that broad definition, policy is defined as ‘positions taken by the state’ [2] (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, 4), while policy process is taken, generally, to refer to ‘the chronology of an issue coming onto the policy agenda’ and, specifically, to ‘the construction of a policy text’ which represents the position assumed by the state (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, 14). Defined in this way, IPEPF are about the constitutive interactions among a range of local, national and international organizational actors during the evolution of education reform agendas, and the production of those official texts which contain the position assumed by a government or MINED with regard to some aspect of the country’s education system. A variety of elements (i.e. events and sub-‐processes) give shape to the landscape of such processes and, along with the actors, form the basis for interaction. These include, for example: the conduct, presentation and diffusion of research and information; advocacy work; processes of national consultation; national commissions; international conferences and seminars; and international agreements. Such a definition of IPEPF, and the terms which comprise them, brings to the fore the multi-‐level, complex and contested nature of internationally influenced policy production.

An essential element in such processes is the involvement of international actors (Ginsburg et al, 1990; Dale, 1999; Jakobi, 2009; Samoff, 2009). This presence can be solely physical, as when individuals from international development organizations or international non-‐governmental organizations (INGOs), for example, participate directly in the events (both formal and informal) that comprise IPEPF; or, importantly, and commonly, it could otherwise be material, as when international development organizations such as the World Bank attach conditionalities to their loans or else establish the protocols, regulations and/or norms to which developing countries must respond. Without such forms of international involvement -‐ the range of which must be taken into account when analyzing IPEPF -‐ the matter would be more appropriately characterized as processes of domestic education policy formation. Thus, I contend that using the terminology of IPEPF is necessary because it accommodates the range of possible manifestations of international actors in such processes. Invoking this terminology and defining it in the above way is also seen as necessary because it moves away from the notion that, owing to globalization, ideas and reforms flow in an untraceable or power-‐neutral fashion. Indeed, as Robertson et al (2002) write, ‘globalization is the outcome of processes that involve real actors – economic and political – with real interests’ (p. 472).

Researching International Processes of Education Policy Formation

129

While international actors are an essential element of IPEPF, national actors are also at the center of these processes (Dale, 2005). That is to say, relevant organizations, institutions, and stakeholders are both domestic and international in nature. To be clear, organizational and institutional actors, in addition to being governmental and non-‐governmental, can also be bilateral/multilateral, as well as for-‐profit and/or non-‐profit (Ginsburg et al, 1990). This is not to suggest that other actors, such as community, parent and/or teacher associations, or even representatives of social movements, cannot be involved; rather, it only acknowledges that, in the current context of globalization, such processes primarily lend priority to international-‐ and national-‐level domestic actors (McGinn, 1994; Dale, 1999). A challenge for researchers is to be attentive to the ways in which sub-‐national domestic actors, and perhaps their international collaborators, resist and/or participate in IPEPF (Tsing, 2005).

Beyond an exclusive focus on the actions of specific actors, research into IPEPF, as mentioned earlier, is necessarily also concerned with identifying, analyzing and characterizing the dynamics of these processes. On one hand, focusing on the dynamics means being attentive to the elements which comprise the constitutive interactions that give life and shape to IPEPF. On the other hand, one is encouraged to include and then look beyond the immediately observable or identifiable elements to also consider the structural aspects of policy formation – what Lukes (2005) refers to as ‘the bias of the system’ (p. 26) – as well as the cumulative effects of the patterns of actors’ interaction over the course of the entire process. Allison and Zelikow (1999) refer to what happens in these patterns of interaction as the ‘pulling and hauling’ (p. 255) that occurs ‘as interdependent actors seek to advance their agendas in the numerous arenas where policy gets brokered’ (Malen & Knapp, 1997, p. 429). Thus, by focusing on dynamics in an investigation of IPEPF, one is encouraged to examine both ‘the capabilities (and actions) of individuals’ as well as the ‘complexities of social relationships and the constitution of fields of possibility’ in those processes (Lemke, 2011, p. 23). In sum, it is essential to focus on dynamics because doing so prompts one to look beyond the actions of individual actors to other factors that also bear on IPEPF, such as these processes’ structural aspects.

Lastly, along with focusing on dynamics, one must consider and unpack the idea of influence, for, indeed, influence in one form or another is central to any discussion of policy formation. To that end, it is useful to state that there is a range of ways in which one actor or force can impact another. First, however, I offer a general definition of influence: influence occurs when A is able to sway, guide, change or determine B’s behavior and/or decision in some way. Within that, one can distinguish among the following types of influence: persuasion, manipulation, coercion, force, and the bias of the system (see Lukes, 2005, pp. 20-‐37). Here, persuasion refers to the use of reason or logic by A to modify B’s course of action.[3] Manipulation is different, in that B pursues a course of action guided by A, although B is not aware of how A’s actions affect B’s decisions. Further to the point, manipulation can refer to when A uses available resources to alter the rules of the game and/or the range of options available to B. Coercion, on the other hand, involves a threat by A of withholding something from B in order to induce the desired outcome. Force, the most overt form of influence, refers to the use of might by A to make B comply. Lastly, and more intangibly, albeit no less importantly, one can discuss the influence of the bias of the system. Here, the actor is not an individual agent or institution; it is, rather, a set of interrelated forces which cause influence and benefits to accrue to certain actors rather than others. As Bachrach and Baratz (in Lukes, 2005) describe, the bias of the system is ‘a set of predominant values, beliefs, rituals, and institutional procedures (“rules of the game”) that operate systematically and consistently to the benefit of certain persons and groups at the expense of others’ (Bachrach & Baratz 1970, as cited in Lukes, 2005, p. 21). In sum, then, influence in IPEPF takes a variety of forms and refers not only to observable actions, but also to the bias inherent in the context and to the structural relations in which IPEPF nest. In analyzing IPEPF, the concept of influence and its multiple shades are integral because they help one to understand, characterize, and nuance findings regarding process dynamics and the exercise of power.

D. Brent Edwards Jr

130

With a clear idea of the limits of the terms discussed above, a more productive discussion can be had about researching IPEPF. That is, a more precise conceptual understanding ensures that one selects those methods that can get at the underlying ideas and, ultimately, produce findings that, in turn, can help to advance understanding of how such phenomena come to fruition.

History and Context

In addition to being involved in Salvadoran affairs during the civil war that lasted from 1980 to 1992, USAID, the World Bank, and a range of other international actors have continued to be involved in many ways since that time (Borgh, 2005). One area in particular of continued involvement has been education (Gillies, 2010). Indeed, the domestic activity of international agents has centered generally around educational reform, and specifically around EDUCO, the program for education decentralization which transferred to the community level the responsibility for the management of schools as well as for the hiring and supervision of teachers. This program for many years received a great deal of attention for its perceived success in decentralizing management. Since the program’s beginning, national actors have remained central to EDUCO’s creation and modification processes. In some cases, local-‐level actors have also participated.

Thus, each of the multiple rounds of policy formation that have occurred since the beginning of the 1990s have involved multiple levels of actors, ranging from the international to the local. For example, in 1991, when the EDUCO decentralization strategy was adopted as a pilot program by the MINED, the World Bank was involved (World Bank/OED, 1998). In 1993, a sector assessment was funded by USAID and conducted by Harvard University, for which both international and domestic experts were hired. Importantly, this sector assessment fed into the Ten Year Plan elaborated for education reform in 1994-‐1995, which called for country-‐wide expansion of the EDUCO program in rural areas (Reimers & McGinn, 1997; Guzmán, 2005). In the process of policy formation that occurred between 2003 and 2005, USAID again funded an education sector assessment, this time conducted by an INGO, the Academy for Educational Development (AED) (Edwards, forthcoming).

At the national level, in both 1993 and 2004, special presidentially appointed committees were created. These committees comprised prominent Salvadorans and were charged with authoring recommendations regarding the goals and features of subsequent education reform. Additionally, in the process of policy formation between 2003 and 2005 national consultations were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders ranging from the private sector to teachers, parents, students and community members (Edwards, forthcoming). In the most recent round of education reform, which occurred during 2009-‐2011, AED and other INGOs were again involved (Valiente, 2010). This most recent round of policy formation, however, had as its focus the transformation of the EDUCO program, a result of pressure from teachers’ unions and a campaign promise made by Mauricio Funes, the first left-‐wing president to be elected in El Salvador since the end of the civil war. The transformation has removed from community control the heart of the EDUCO program – that is, the ability of communities to hire and fire teachers – and, in so doing, has, to all intents and purposes, nullified the program.

Without a doubt, then, numerous actors from multiple different levels have been intimately involved in education reform over the past twenty years. Furthermore, a recurring focus during each process of education reform over that time has been the EDUCO program. However, although we are able to identify a few of the critical junctures and some of the national and international agents involved, the insights available through previous research are seen as incomplete because they do not systematically investigate how each IPEPF transpired, what the role of each actor was, and how those actors influenced the development of the EDUCO program. Thus, it is argued here that a more in-‐depth and extensive study is necessary that identifies and analyzes the roles of actors at multiple levels and across multiple instances of IPEPF – and that, within that, zeroes in on


131

the case of EDUCO with regard to how it was initially created, subsequently scaled up, and eventually transformed.

Research Questions

To address this gap in our knowledge, I ask two multipart questions. First, in relation to overarching processes of education reform in El Salvador since the early 1990s, how did the EDUCO program evolve? Second, in response to the multi-‐level nature of these processes, how have international, national and local actors contributed to EDUCO’s development (i.e. to EDUCO’s creation, expansion and transformation)? By answering these questions, the research will both illuminate how IPEPF occur in El Salvador and inform how such processes are understood and theorized more generally.

Methodology

Within what Kurki (2008) labels a philosophical realist ontology, methodologically I approach this research as a longitudinal case study (Jensen & Rogers, 2001). This methodology corresponds with the needs of the study because, as Jensen and Rogers (2001) explain,

Longitudinal case studies ... focus on political entities or institutions …, on a particular agency (see Wood, 1988), or on policies, programs, or decisions. [They] may be quantitative or qualitative in character and may involve a formal report and analysis of critical events or processes. ... Time is the organizing device and the dynamics of change are the primary focus. In some longitudinal case studies, the full experience of an entity is reported from its birth to its demise. (p. 38)

Thus, for multiple reasons, the choice of a longitudinal case-‐study approach is appropriate. For example, this study is political in nature and concerned with the development of a program (EDUCO) over time (from the early 1990s to 2011). Furthermore, the research necessarily examines processes (in this case, processes of policy formation, or IPEPF), and does so by focusing on both critical events and the ‘dynamics of change’ of the policy formation processes across which EDUCO is developed, scaled up, and eventually transformed (Jensen & Rogers, 2001, p. 38). This research also reflects the above description of longitudinal case studies in that it encompasses the ‘birth’ and ‘demise’ of the EDUCO program, as nested within processes of IPEPF.

Methods: data collection and data analysis

Despite a growing interest in multi-‐level analyses of policy, details of data collection and analysis are often omitted from published works, or are buried in the dissertations [4] on which later works are based. In contrast, this section presents the methods on which the study of IPEPF in El Salvador is based. It is hoped that making available the specific analytic strategies and tools used in the present research will foster further reflection and discussion on fruitful ways to investigate policy formation phenomena. In what follows, I begin by reflecting on the tasks that the methods employed must be able to accomplish. I then discuss in detail the specific data collection and data analysis strategies that align with the needs of the study.

By reflecting on the research questions and the purpose of this study, one can distill nine inter-‐related tasks for the methods that will be employed. In particular – and remembering that, while this research focuses on IPEPF in El Salvador generally, its purpose is to zero in on the creation, expansion and transformation of the EDUCO program specifically – the methods used must help one to: (a) understand the political-‐economic context of El Salvador; (b) determine the constitutive interactions and elements that comprise and delimit each process of policy formation; (c) document the content and creation of successive policy documents and related reports; (d) detail the evolution of the EDUCO program from initial inception to recent transformation; (e) identify the relevant

D. Brent Edwards Jr

132

domestic and international actors before and during each period of national educational change between the early 1990s and 2011; (f) trace the emergence, trajectory and interaction of involved actors over time; (g) parse out, within each process of educational change, the roles of the concerned international and domestic actors in relation to each other and among themselves; (h) interpret the general dynamics and specific forms of influence that characterize IPEPF in El Salvador; and (i) explain, within each instance of IPEPF, how actors from the international, national and local levels impacted the development of the EDUCO program. Provided that these tasks can be accomplished, the present study will be able to offer both findings on the trajectory of the EDUCO program in El Salvador, and analytic generalizations related to how IPEPF are theorized to occur. As will be shown below, in order to accomplish these tasks, I rely on established case-‐study methods (Yin, 1994), as well as specific analytic strategies (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Thus, the concepts behind the numerous strategies discussed below are not new; nevertheless, this article represents the first instance in which the work of Miles and Huberman (1994) and Yin (1994) has been adapted to and tailored for research on IPEPF. Moreover, while inspired by the work of these authors, a few of the analytic strategies delineated in what follows (i.e. nos 3, 6 and 7 three, six, and seven) are the innovation of the author. Likewise, all heuristics and diagrams presented below have been created by the author specifically to facilitate investigation of IPEPF. Prior to further discussion of analytic strategies, the next section addresses data collection.

Data Collection

As Yin (1994) notes, documents and interviews are two vital sources of information for case-‐study research. The information obtained as one gathers documents and conducts interviews helps one to understand the basic features of the context and processes under study. That is, in the natural course of collecting documents and performing interviews one begins to understand a country’s political-‐economic context, comprehend the elements and events which comprise and delimit each process of policy formation, and identify the domestic and international actors involved.

With regard to documents specifically, historical analyses can provide information on the political, economic and social contexts surrounding the policy-‐formation processes of interest. Separately, documents generated in relation to specific events in the policy-‐formation processes themselves contain valuable facts and figures, provide data on the nature of those events and on the agendas being constructed and contested, as well as give an indication of where and by whom legitimate information was produced. Similarly, texts such as institutional reports, official legislation, education sector assessments, workshop proceedings, MINED statements, and newspaper articles, among others, can contribute to a more complete understanding of who participated and how, the context of that participation, and the structure of the overall process of policy formation. They also help to identify absences – that is, those voices, actors and perspectives which were not included in such processes (Jupp, 1996).

Interviews with local, national, and international actors provide information of a similar nature. In one respect, however, interviews have an advantage over documents: they help one better ‘to gain an understanding of the ways in which ... educational policy is [was] being interpreted, negotiated, and produced in relation to various pressures, and how policy is [was] interpreted by various system actors’ (Engel, 2007, p. 96). Interview data also help one to first identify and then interpret the roles of actors involved in such processes. Lastly, interviews can reveal alternative accounts to the official record that is reflected in government documents. For these reasons, they constitute a valuable source of data.

While the value of these forms of data is well known, what is more difficult to delineate is how one ought to go about actually collecting such information. Each researcher must deal with the particularities of their case in relation to issues of access. In the case of IPEPF in El Salvador, I will cast a wide net in gathering documents. This is to


133

ensure that data collection is as inclusive as possible. I will begin my search with those institutions known to have participated in the processes of policy formation in El Salvador since 1990 (e.g. those international and national organizations discussed in the History and Context section of this article). Many of these institutions, in addition to maintaining online repositories, also have physical databases and libraries which contain documents related to their engagement in IPEPF. In my case, familiarity with some of these information sources has been made possible through prior research (Edwards, forthcoming), as well as through a consultancy with the World Bank’s Human Development Division. In addition, access to document collections and interviewees located in El Salvador has been facilitated by visits to El Salvador twice during 2009 to participate in, and then to help lead, a study trip on education in rural areas. By following up with contacts made during those trips and through conducting prior research I was able to cultivate the institutional affiliations necessary in order to apply for and be selected to receive a Fulbright Research Grant. These affiliations – with a university, a think tank and a consulting firm – are vital because these institutions both house documents related to IPEPF and have themselves been involved in multiple rounds of IPEPF. On the basis of the documents obtained during initial data collection, I will branch out to other organizations and sources, as necessary. Existing document reviews and interviewee recommendations can also be useful in identifying additional documents.

The strategy for accessing interviewees is very similar to that for locating documents. I will begin by approaching those key actors with whom I spoke during previous research, and will also rely on new institutional affiliations for recommendations. That is to say, I will use snowball sampling (Berg, 2007). I used a similar approach when conducting my study on policy formation in El Salvador between 2003 and 2005 (Edwards, forthcoming). At that time, I began by collecting as many documents as I could directly related to events in the process of policy formation (such as event reports, sector assessments, etc.), and then proceeded to email or call each author and/or participant listed in the documents. Although many of my attempts to contact individuals were ignored, a few were not, and the snowballing process accelerated upon obtaining the endorsement of a well-‐known actor or two who have been involved in the politics of education policy reform in El Salvador for some time.

For the present research, I will tap existing contacts while pursuing additional ones who participated in or have knowledge of the particular policy formation processes of interest in El Salvador. Table I lists the types of actors at each level who will be pursued for interviews, along with specific examples of each.[5] It total, I expect to speak with about 50 different interviewees, above the average of 36 for case-‐study research (Mason, 2010). More important than the absolute number of interviewees, however, is confidence that I have interviewed as many relevant actors as possible from each level. One gains this confidence by continuing to perform and seek new interviews until one has successfully spoken with all those actors whom documents and other interviewees suggest are important. Saturation is the other way in which one obtains confidence regarding the extent and accuracy of the data collected through interviews (Guest et al, 2006; Mason, 2010). Evidence of saturation around a particular interview topic or from a particular sub-‐group begins to emerge when interviewees largely repeat the same stories, offer the same explanations, and give the same information. That said, it is suggested that it is preferable to err on the side of too many interviews. Likewise, even when one begins to experience saturation, one should continue to seek out under-‐represented and/or unrepresented voices and perspectives. Interviewee category Examples International Level Actors Multilateral Agencies European Union, Inter-‐American Development Bank, Organization of

American States, Organization of Ibero-‐American States, United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Development Program, World Bank

Bilateral Donors United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Representatives of Bilateral Donor Organizations from France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Mexico,

D. Brent Edwards Jr

134

Spain, etc. International Non-‐Governmental Organizations

Academy for Educational Development, Research Triangle International, etc.

Other (Non-‐Salvadoran-‐based)

Harvard Institute for International Development, International Consultants and Researchers

National Level Actors Governmental Officials and Political Party Actors

Appointed Officials and Staff from the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, etc.; Elected Public Officials; Representatives of Political Parties

Education Stakeholder Representatives

Teachers’ Union Representatives, Parent Associations, etc.

National Non-‐Governmental Organizations

Business Foundation for Educational Development, Centro Alfa, Salvadoran Foundation for Economic and Social Development

Other Members of Special Commissions on Education, Private Sector Representatives, University of Central America, etc.

Local Level Actors Ministry of Education Departmental-‐level Officials and Staff Local Non-‐Governmental Organizations

Association for Economic and Social Development, Popular Education Foundation, Union of Rural Communities, Coordination of Rural Communities

Education Stakeholders Parents, Principals, and Teachers Other Civil Society Groups Community Groups, Education-‐Related Activist Groups

Note: This table is meant to be inclusive, not exhaustive.

Table I. Potential interviewees by level and category. On a technical level, interviews will be semi-‐structured or, in Berg’s (2007) terms, ‘semi-‐standardized’ (95); conducted in either English or Spanish, as appropriate; performed at a location chosen by the interviewee; and recorded, provided the interviewee gives consent (Siedman, 2006; Berg, 2007). The content of the questions will deal with the interviewee’s experience with, knowledge of, and perspective on each process of policy formation in El Salvador since the early 1990s. Questions will be both general and specific, and tailored to the level and prior experiences of each interviewee. I will ask about the events that made up such processes; about the involvement, actions and influence of international actors in them; about the dynamics of interaction among and between international, national and local agents; and about the ways in which these factors affected the emergence and path of EDUCO. By asking such questions, I will collect data that amplify and perhaps problematize the official and prevailing accounts of education reform found in documents produced by and/or for the government and the World Bank (both of which have produced a great deal of research and literature related to EDUCO).

Finally, the issue of confidentiality and consent will be dealt with on a case-‐by-‐case basis. Maintaining complete anonymity during the writing and presentation of findings, for example, limits the ability of readers to make sense of and evaluate the perspectives of actors from different levels and types of institutions for themselves because such identifying information would have to be removed. Thus, to the extent that it is possible to do so, I will attempt to obtain permission from key actors to use relevant quotes from interviews. It may be more likely that interviewees provide such permission if I assure them that I will first share with them the quotes I desire to use so that they have the opportunity to approve and/or modify them. This strategy is also valuable for ensuring that the researcher derives the correct meaning from the words of interviewees.

Although the discussion above has focused on data collection, in qualitative research it is not possible to completely separate data collection from data analysis. The former is an inherently iterative process, as analyzing the data one has collected facilitates identification of gaps in the data obtained and points to remaining data needs. Furthermore, with regard to document collection, one must have a way to ensure that the texts retained for future analysis are relevant. Thus, as with Engel (2007), during the process of document gathering, I will evaluate ‘each document ... for its usefulness for


135

analysis’ against the data analysis tasks driving the study (p. 101). As Engel (2007) does, I will rely on the set of specific questions developed by Guba and Lincoln (1981) in order to establish each document’s appropriateness for analysis. This set of questions includes, for example, the following: Who is the author and what is the author trying to accomplish? For whom was the document intended? What other documents may supplement this one? What is the subject of the document? How is the subject of the document articulated? What is the location where the document was generated? What is the context in which the document was written? What is the date/time of the document? Some documents provide more information than others, and it is important to distinguish which to retain for more in-‐depth analysis. This will be accomplished by evaluating each document in light of the questions listed above. The act of deciding which documents to retain begins over the course of data collection and also commences the process of data analysis, which the next section addresses in detail.

Data Analysis

A number of data analysis strategies will be pursued, for which I draw from Miles and Huberman (1994) and Yin (1994). The description of methods presented below should not be interpreted as a strictly linear sequence, but rather as a set of inter-‐related analytic activities that inform each other and often occur simultaneously, though some techniques will naturally be more relevant at the beginning or end of the data analysis stage. I define each strategy (many of which have been employed previously in Edwards, forthcoming), connect it to the data analysis tasks identified earlier, and discuss its application to the case of IPEPF in El Salvador. Table II summarizes each of the ten strategies elaborated, along with the tasks to which they correspond.

The first data analytic step in which I will engage – namely, repeatedly analyzing and coding the data – begins informally during the data-‐collection process. However, although one begins to repeatedly analyze the document and interview data during data collection (e.g. in order to identify gaps in the information collected), moving to the stage of more formal analysis is different, (a) in that the process is more structured, (b) in that it takes into account all the data currently amassed, and (c) in that one begins to code the data as well. As opposed to inductive coding, I will begin with the conceptualization of IPEPF elaborated at the beginning of this article, and I will use it to guide the derivation of code categories from the data. Initial code categories may pertain to level of actor, event, or type of influence. In keeping with the research questions, subsequent codes may be developed to code data that indicate the ways in which different types and levels of actors impacted the development of the EDUCO program. Document and interview data will also be repeatedly analyzed in order to identify and extract factual information on who participated, when, how, through which events, and under what constricting or enabling structural conditions. This first strategy is crucial, as careful coding and repeated interrogation of the data allow for incisiveness throughout subsequent analyses which rely on this first step. The initial analysis contributes to the identification of emergent themes which can be explored and refined as additional information is incorporated into data analysis. No. Strategy Strategy Description Tasks 1 Repeatedly

analyze and code data

Assess data for IPEPF context, isolate facts about IPEPF and EDUCO (dates, events, actors involved, etc.), and code data (e.g. interviewee statements re: dynamics, influence, process mechanisms, etc.).

a, b, d, e

2 Memoing Consider data gathered and record emerging findings, reflections, or insights into meaning of interrelationships among data.

a, b, d, e, f, g, h, i

3 Perspectival flow chart

Aggregate actors’ characterizations of events, processes and others’ actions by level and period, and then analyze cross-‐sections for themes.

f, g, h

4 Events listing Create a chronological listing of all events during policy formation process, as understood on the basis of interrogation of data.

a, b, d, e

D. Brent Edwards Jr

136

5 Critical events timeline

Distill events timeline to only include those events, actions and actors around which data converge; include commentary on significance and dynamics of each event, based on repeated analysis and evolving understanding of process dynamics.

a, b, d, e, h

6 Policy content matrix

Trace emergence of policy content across process-‐related documents produced by various actors.

c, f, g, h, i

7 Actor-‐influence matrix

Distill and summarize, by level and across periods of IPEPF, actions and forms of influence of actors, as well as shifting structural characteristics.

c, f, g, h, i

8 Context charts Visually represent the linkages among the essential events, actors and context for each period of IPEPF. The focus is on mapping context, rather than attributing causation in the process of policy formation.

a, b, e, f, g, h

9 Logic models Elaborate the interplay of context, events and actors, and explain the ways in which each of them acted and interacted to influence, constrain, or enable IPEPF generally while facilitating, inhibiting or otherwise affecting the development of the EDUCO program specifically.

d, i

10 Causal diagrams Departs from the logic model and ‘[d]isplay[s] ... the most important independent and dependent variables in a field of study (shown in boxes) and of the relationships among them (shown by arrows). The plot of these relationships is directional, rather than solely correlational’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 153).

d, i

Task Key: (a) understand the political-‐economic context of El Salvador; (b) determine the constitutive elements and successive events that comprise and delimit each process of policy formation; (c) document the content and creation of successive policy documents and related reports; (d) detail the evolution of the EDUCO program from initial inception to recent transformation; (e) identify the relevant domestic and international actors before and during each period of national educational change between 1989 and 2011; (f) identify and trace the emergence, trajectory, intersection, and interaction of involved actors over time; (g) parse out, within each process of educational change, the roles of the concerned international and domestic actors in relation to each other and among themselves; (h) interpret the general dynamics and forms of influence that characterize IPEPF in El Salvador; and (i) explain, within each instance of IPEPF, how actors from the international, national and local levels impacted the development of the EDUCO program.

Note: The analytic strategies are iterative and cumulative; thus, while certain tasks are associated more with particular analytic strategies, they are not entirely separable from the adjacent steps in the analysis.

Table II. Data analysis summary: strategy descriptions and analytic tasks fulfilled. Memoing is the second strategy that I will employ. Here, as one considers the data gathered, one records one’s incipient insights, reflections and findings regarding the meaning of or interrelationships among data. These insights emerge through the analysis of individual or multiple sources of data and may relate to minor or major issues -‐ for example, the meaning of one interviewee’s statements, or a more nuanced understanding of how certain actors strategically engaged in a series of events to systematically influence agenda construction. Moreover, this step is particularly important, since it is by reflecting on and drawing connections among the gathered data that one begins to be able to, among other things, more concretely discern the boundaries of each process of policy formation. That is to say, on the one hand, while the conclusion of IPEPF is not difficult to identify since they conclude with the formulation or authorization of an official policy statement, on the other hand, bounding the commencement of IPEPF can be more challenging since that requires one to identify the point at which domestic and international actors begin to engage specifically for the purpose of policy formation.

It should be noted that memoing is also important for developing an understanding of the structural issues that constrain certain actors and enable others. This is because the ‘bias of the system’ (or the lack thereof) tends not to be readily evident when one begins to unpack the context in which IPEPF take place. Thus, as one becomes familiar with the laws, regulations, aid relationships, loan conditionalities and other forces which may impinge upon the actions of involved actors and perhaps undergird the entire context of


137

IPEPF, it is essential that one records one’s insights in memo form so that they can be revisited and revised as more data become available. Lastly, given that many of the strategies described below provide structured spaces in which to organize and analyze the data collected, memos provide, in contrast, a valuable, free-‐form space in which to pursue insights and engage in reflections on the relations among multi-‐level data and the complex contexts to which they pertain. Thus, though memoing is the second strategy described here, it is an important method with which the researcher of IPEPF engages throughout the data analysis process.

As the name of the third strategy, perspectival flow charts, suggests, the purpose of this data analysis tool is to record and analyze how actors characterize periods of – or events and interactions within – IPEPF. These characterizations can be derived from interviewee recollections, institutional documents and previously published reports. Given both the potentially numerous sources and levels from which characterizations flow, as well as the many events and processes to which they may pertain, the advantage of this flow chart is that it helps to group and array data in such a way that it facilitates analysis. Indeed, as one continues to aggregate data in the perspectival flow chart, one is better able to look for and identify themes. These themes may relate to the meaning which actors attribute to certain events, the interpretation of a given encounter, or the understanding they have of the dynamics of extended periods of interaction. In order to facilitate analysis both of the perspectives of actors broken down by period of IPEPF as well as of the perspectives of actors across periods of IPEPF, the flow chart contains an additional column and an additional row where one can note themes which pertain to these cross-‐sections. More extended thoughts on the data contained in such a chart can be recorded in memos. Table III provides an example of a perspectival flow chart.

IPEPF 1 IPEPF 2 IPEPF 3 Reform periods/ Actors Sub-‐

period 1 Sub-‐

period 2 Sub-‐

period 1 Sub-‐period 2

Sub-‐period 1

Sub-‐period 2

Themes/ comments across IPEPF

Actor 1 Intl. actors Actor 2

Actor 1 Natl. actors Actor 2

Actor 1 Local actors Actor 2

Themes/comments across levels

Table III. Example of perspectival flow chart. The fourth and fifth strategies – creating an events listing and then creating a critical events timeline – are closely related. In the former, one creates a chronological listing of all events during each policy-‐formation process, as understood on the basis of repeated interrogation of the data. It builds directly on strategy number one. This listing is more extensive and inclusive than the critical events timeline, which only includes those events around which data converge. Furthermore, the critical events timeline includes space to record commentary on the significance of the actions which occur during and around each event, process or sub-‐process. Over the course of analysis, findings may begin to emerge by critically evaluating and reflecting on events. Importantly, the picture arrived at in constructing the events timeline and then reducing it to the critical events timeline is not assumed to be complete and total; however, on the basis of repeated analysis of the data and convergence of multiple data sources around a handful of events, actions and actors, the researcher is able to interpret and gain insight into the way in which certain circumstances and variables shape and influence various stages of IPEPF. Table IV provides an example of how one might construct a critical events timeline.

D. Brent Edwards Jr

138

Date (Ongoing) Sub-‐

Process(es)

Event(s) Information

Commentary

Period 1 Sub-‐period 1

Sub-‐period 2

Period 2 Sub-‐period 1

Sub-‐period 2

Table IV. Example of critical events timeline. The sixth strategy – what I term a policy content matrix – enables one to document the evolution of general policy ideas and specific policy provisions as they appear in various types of documents and as published by various actors in the process of policy formation. To provide an example, in my previous research on policy formation in El Salvador between 2003 and 2005, the types of documents in which policy recommendations surfaced included: regional strategy documents for USAID and the World Bank; education sector assessments; roundtable consultation proceedings; research studies; presidentially appointed education commission reports; university workshop summaries; and a variety of MINED documents and policy statements. Table V provides an example of the form that such a matrix may take in order to be able to plot the emergence of policy recommendations across this diversity of documents. Policy Documents: Donor

Report 1 Donor Report 2

Roundtable Report 1

Research Study

1

Research Study

2

Special Committee Report 1

MINED Official Plan

Document circulation begins

Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Date 4 Date 5 Date 6 Date 7

1. Strategic Policy Line 1

1.1 Specific Policy Provision 1


2. Strategic Policy Line 2



Total

Example Key: DR = Document specifically recommends policy provision or strategic line DS = Document generally supports policy provision or strategic line DO = Document opposes policy provision or strategic line NM = No mention in document of policy provision or strategic line

Table V. Example of policy content matrix: tracing emergence of strategic lines and specific provisions of policies. The advantage is that one can clearly array many bits of data from a multitude of texts and then analyze the data display for insights and/or trends which emerge. This type of matrix also provides a means through which to visually demonstrate to others the extent to


139

which certain actors may have favored a particular set of policy provisions across one or many documents, while others perhaps did not. As with the perspectival flow chart, an additional column and row could be added to accommodate notes on the timing or content of certain documents, or on the framing of specific provisions, for example. Otherwise, these reflections could be contained in further memos.

The seventh strategy I employ aggregates and summarizes the actions and forms of influence of multiple levels of actors across IPEPF. It is similar in design and purpose to the perspectival flow chart, and is labeled here an actor-‐influence matrix. Like the perspectival flow chart, it accommodates a summary of things over time. It is different, however, in that the perspectival flow chart contains characterizations by involved or associated actors, while the actor-‐influence matrix is populated by the researcher on the basis of their by now revised, refined and extensive understanding both of the periods of IPEPF and of the actions, intentions and forms of influence of the relevant actors. Beyond a representation of the actors’ own perspectives, then, it clarifies when actors entered a given IPEPF, the ways in which they engaged with the process, what their intentions were, and how they influenced each period of IPEPF. Furthermore, unlike the perspectival flow chart, this matrix can include a row in which to record notes on developments in the political-‐economic (i.e. macro or structural) conditions in which each IPEPF occurs. Indeed, while the bias of the system cannot speak for itself, the researcher, after critically assessing the ways in which the bias of the system manifests through previous analytic strategies, can note these features of the context in this matrix. This is advantageous to the extent that one can juxtapose in a single location the actions, intentions and influences of multiple levels of actors, along with macro-‐structural features (e.g. World Bank loan conditionalities) that may bear on IPEPF. Table VI serves as an example of one way to construct an actor-‐influence matrix.

IPEPF 1 IPEPF 2 IPEPF 3 Reform Periods/ Actors Sub-‐

period 1 Sub-‐period 2

Sub-‐period 1

Sub-‐period 2

Sub-‐period 1

Sub-‐period 2

Themes/comments across IPEPF

Actor 1 Actor 2

Intl. actors

Actor 3

Actor 1 Actor 2

Natl. actors

Actor 3

Actor 1 Actor 2

Local actors

Actor 3

Aspect 1 Bias of the system

Aspect 2

Themes/comments across levels

Table VI. Example of actor-‐influence matrix. The eighth analytic strategy is to create a context chart. As Miles and Huberman (1994) explain, a context chart is ‘a network, mapping in graphic form the interrelationships among the roles and groups (and, if appropriate, organizations) that go to make up the context of [overall] behavior’ (p. 102). The process of working with the data to produce such a graphic relies on the tactics of identifying patterns of interaction as well as ‘subsuming particulars into the general’ (p. 104). As such, in large part, it is a distillation and visual representation of the information that the actor-‐influence matrix contains.

D. Brent Edwards Jr

140

Importantly, the process of creating a context chart leads the researcher to gain a deeper understanding of the linkages among the events, actors and context for each period of IPEPF. One is ‘not simply drawing a ... chart, but ... mapping salient properties of the context’ (p. 104). Because two-‐dimensional context charts are inherently static, in my research on El Salvador I will produce one for each of the four periods of IPEPF identified (see the History and Context section of this article for more on these periods). Lastly, it should be mentioned here that context charts, as their name implies, are characterized not so much by the attribution of causation in producing policy as by their inclusion and mapping of an IPEPF’s overall contextual features, constitutive events and contributing actors. The present essay provides an example by creating a context chart of the data analysis methods proposed for researching IPEPF. This context chart is contained in Figure 1. As can be seen, it maps the interrelationships among strategies (note the bi-‐directional arrows among strategies, indicating the iterative and complementary nature of these proposed strategies); in addition, it reflects the general order or sequence in which one might engage with each (though, as noted above, the process of analysis is inherently iterative).


141

Figure 1. Context chart of methods for researching IPEPF. The penultimate strategy is to elaborate a logic model. Crucially, the purpose is to explain each process of IPEPF and the ways in which various actors impacted EDUCO. In so doing, one condenses a large amount of data in order to zero in on the most salient features of IPEPF, as parsed out by previously engaging in the series of analytic strategies described above. In the end, as Miles and Huberman (1994) explain, ‘if you’ve done it [i.e created a logic model] right, you will have respected the complexity of local causality as it ... played out over time, and successfully combined “process” and “variable” analyses’ (p. 160). Thus, it demonstrates causal relationships by explaining how certain conditions lead to other

conditions, as distinguished from spurious relationships (Yin, 2003). In the words of Yin (2003), it deliberately stipulates ‘a complex chain of events over time ... in repeated cause-‐effect-‐cause-‐effect patterns, whereby a dependent variable (event) at an earlier stage becomes the independent variable (causal event) for the next stage’ (p. 127). With regard

D. Brent Edwards Jr

142

to form, a logic model is a tightly wound narrative that succinctly conveys only those particularities and contextual features necessary to explain how each period of IPEPF proceeds, and, within that, how various actors and forces impacted the development of EDUCO. An example of a logic model can be found in Edwards (forthcoming).

The writing of the logic model can be difficult, due to the amount and complexity of the data. Thus, one should rely on the insights gained by engaging in each of the numerous strategies outlined above. By continually working with the data in each of these ways, one arrives at themes and findings that feed into the development and improvement of the logic model. More specifically, in order to ensure construct validity (i.e. explanatory power) of the logic model, one should (a) use triangulation strategies, (b) seek convergence among data, and (c) consider rival interpretations of key events and data (Yin, 2003). Similarly, Miles and Huberman (1994) provide suggestions for making causal assertions: they should be based on strength of association, specificity, coherence and plausibility. The recommendations of both Miles and Huberman (1994) and Yin (2003) are particularly useful strategies for dealing with the limitations inherent in the types of data relied upon. For example, it is to be expected that there will be missing (read ‘unattainable’) documents or unobservable aspects of the overall process for which one must make inferences.

Finally, while a logic model is a verbal explanation, the tenth and final strategy, a causal network, is a visual depiction. As Miles and Huberman (1994) write, ‘[a] causal network is a display of the most important independent and dependent variables in a field of study (shown in boxes) and of the relationships among them (shown by arrows)’. The plot of these relationships is directional, rather than solely correlational. It is assumed that some factors exert an influence on others’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 153, emphasis in original). Thus, ‘[i]n the causal network, the analyst traces the emergence and consequences of a particular theme and orchestrates it with others’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 160). In the present research, the particular case is the EDUCO program, and the causal network will portray its development as impacted by various actors across a range of events, and in relation to a series of IPEPF. Indeed, as with context charts, I elaborate multiple causal networks because there have been multiple IPEPF in El Salvador since the early 1990s. Analytic generalizations are made by considering the trends which emerge across instances of IPEPF. As a final word on this strategy, it should be noted that, although the visual diagram contains, in the words of Miles and Huberman (1994), only those ‘most important dependent and independent variables’ (p. 153), the process of arriving at the final causal network is neither quick nor easy. Just as with the logic model (from which the causal network departs), one returns time and again to the earlier tables and matrices to repeatedly refine it and ensure that the final depiction is as accurate as possible.

Figure 2 provides an example of a causal network found in Edwards (forthcoming). Within the limitations of two-‐dimensional images, it attempts to represent those most essential elements (e.g. actors, events and sub-‐processes) which comprised the creation of Plan 2021 in El Salvador between 2003 and 2005. More specifically, it charts how AED, USAID and the World Bank influenced both key events leading up to as well as inputs feeding into the MINED’s development of Plan 2021, a national level strategy document which was to serve as the guiding strategy for education in that country through the year 2021. Thus, visual illustrations can be powerful; however, they are incomplete without the associated logic model. That is, while the causal network is useful for showing essential – and causal – relationships, the logic model fills in the gaps by describing features of the IPEPF that cannot be represented visually.


143

Figure 2. Causal network of process dynamics in formation of Plan 2021 in El Salvador, 2003-‐2005.

Source: Edwards (forthcoming).

Discussion and Conclusion

The above discussion of methods ties in with other essays in this issue of RCIE. Specifically, as with the other authors, my research attempts to shed light on how a certain education-‐related process occurs in a developing and post-‐conflict country. For example, Komatsu examines the effects of the process of education management decentralization in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eschenbacher investigates the perspectives of staff from multiple levels working for an international NGO in education in South Sudan, and Pluim delves into the process of youth participation in reconstruction programs in post-‐earthquake Haiti. Furthermore, also like Pluim, I both (a) incorporate an analysis of the macro and historical economic and political conditions which serve as a backdrop to the process of interest, and (b) take as central to my study the ways in which power and influence are manifest. However, unlike the other authors, who focus on policy in practice, my research centers on policy formation. Thus, while there are significant similarities across the articles in question, the present article uniquely focuses on IPEPF.

D. Brent Edwards Jr

144

To that end, the article began by conceptualizing the phenomena under study and providing operationalizable definitions to anchor those concepts. I then briefly discussed features of policy formation in El Salvador and attempted to demonstrate that El Salvador is an appropriate case for investigating IPEPF. Subsequently, the multi-‐part research questions which guide the research on IPEPF in El Salvador were stated. Scholars exploring IPEPF in other contexts might arrive at similar questions.

After fleshing out my approach to data collection, the bulk of the article presented analytic strategies for unpacking IPEPF. These strategies respond to the needs of the study – that is, to the analytic tasks derived from the stated research questions. To the extent that the ten inter-‐related and iterative analytic strategies delineated above respond to these tasks, my research on IPEPF in El Salvador explains, broadly, how processes of education reform in El Salvador have occurred since the early 1990s (when the civil war was ending), how the EDUCO program evolved across each subsequent process of policy formation, and, specifically, how multiple actors from multiple levels contributed to shaping that evolution. To that end, the theoretical framework elaborated at the beginning provides the concepts and terminology necessary to analyze and characterize the various forms of influence in which involved actors engage.

The advantage of the case of the EDUCO program in El Salvador is its duration, and the fact that the trajectory of it is the result of multiple IPEPF. That is to say, by engaging in research on IPEPF in El Salvador since the early 1990s, one is forced to analyze not one, but rather, numerous IPEPF instances. Furthermore, by bounding the case at the inception and the recent transformation of the EDUCO program, the research covers the life of the reform. As such, in addition to generating findings on how IPEPF occur in El Salvador generally, the results will provide nuanced generalizations regarding differences in how IPEPF occur – and how various actors influence IPEPF – when a policy or program is first adopted, when it is scaled up, and when it later undergoes transfiguration.

However, while this article uses the case of IPEPF in El Salvador as a basis for discussion, the present work has been primarily concerned with conceptual and methodological issues. I attempted to detail a particular conception of policy formation – IPEPF – in which disparate actors interact on multiple levels and impact in various ways the development of official education policy statements and programs. Subsequent to that, I attempted to present and explain ten inter-‐related and iterative analytic strategies which have been adopted from Miles and Huberman (1994) and Yin (2003) for the purpose of researching IPEPF. In the end, the hope is that this article can contribute to further discussion of and attempts at such issues, as scholars in the field of comparative and international education continue to examine dynamic, multi-‐level and processual phenomena.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks are due to Dr David Phillips, Heidi Eschenbacher, Taro Komatsu, and Gary Pluim for comments on early versions of this article.

Notes

[1] This assertion is not meant to disregard the large body of extant literature which includes theoretical and empirical discussions of topics related to policy transfer (see e.g. Sutton & Levinson, 2001; Phillips & Ochs, 2003; Steiner-‐Khamsi, 2004; Samoff, 2009; Vavrus & Bartlet, 2009; see also Edwards, [forthcoming] for more extensive citations). Neither is this assertion meant to downplay scholars’ recent methodological contributions for investigating phenomena related to IPEPF (see e.g. Rhoten, 2000; Sutton & Levinson, 2001; Phillips & Ochs, 2003; Vavrus & Bartlett, 2009). Rather, the contention of this article is that, with regard to those internationally influenced processes by which education policies are formed (and not the manner in which education systems experience, appropriate, and/or implement reform more generally), extensive discussion of conceptual boundaries and specific methodological strategies is either uncommon or is focused on a slightly different


145

phenomenon from that which is defined here as IPEPF (for a few exceptions, see Ginsburg et al, 1990; Dale, 1999, 2005; Engel, 2008; Jakobi, 2009).

[2] State is taken to refer to governmental institutions, not to the broader conception of state which encompasses both government and civil society.

[3] See Verger (2012) for more on how international organizations use – and create the conditions necessary to successfully sell -‐ policies based on reason.

[4] Examples of dissertations which focus on multi-‐level analysis of policy and contain informative discussions of methods include, for example: Rhoten (1999), Spreen (2001), Engel (2007), and Smith (2011). See also the dissertations of those authors found in Vavrus and Bartlett (2009).

[5] Admittedly, this division of actors is not without its problems. An alternative approach is to make the distinction between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ policy actors (Smith, 2011).

References

Allison, G. & Zelikow, P. (1999) Essence of Decision, 2nd edn. New York: Longman. Berg, B. (2007) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 6th edn. New York: Pearson. Berman, E. (1979) Foundations of United States Foreign Policy and African Education, 1945-‐1975,

Harvard Educational Review, 49, 145-‐179. Borgh, C. (2005) Donors in War-‐Torn Societies: a case study of El Salvador, in G. Junne &

W. Verkoren (Eds) Postconflict Development: meeting new challenges. London: Lynne Rienner. Dale, R. (1999) Specifying Globalisation Effects on National Policy: focus on the mechanisms,

Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 1-‐17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026809399286468 Dale, R. (2005) Globalisation, Knowledge Economy and Comparative Education, Comparative

Education 41(2), 117-‐149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050060500150906 Edwards, Jr, D.B. (forthcoming) International Processes of Education Policy Formation: an analytic

framework and the case of Plan 2021 in El Salvador, Comparative Education Review. Engel, L. (2007) Rescaling the State: the politics of educational decentralization in Catalonia.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-‐Champaign. Engel, L. (2008) Breaking the Centre–Periphery Mould: exploring globalisation and educational

governance in Catalonia, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(3), 265-‐279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720802343332

Gillies, J. (Ed.) (2010) Education System Reform and Aid Effectiveness: the power of persistence. Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development and Equip 2.

Ginsburg, M., Cooper, S., Raghu, R. & Hugo, Z. (1990) National and World-‐System Explanations of Educational Reform, Comparative Education Review, 34(4), 474-‐499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/446975

Ginsburg, M., Megahed, N., Elmeski, M. & Tanaka, N. (2010) Reforming Educational Governance and Management in Egypt: national and international actors and dynamics, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(5), 1-‐50.

Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981) Effective Evaluation. London: Jossey-‐Bass. Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L. (2006) How Many Interviews? An Experiment with Data

Saturation and Variability, Field Methods, 18(1), 59-‐82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

Guzmán, J.L (2005) Educational Reform in Post-‐War El Salvador, in Emily Vargas-‐Barón & Hernando Bernal Alarcón (Eds) From Bullets to Blackboards: education for peace in Latin America and Asia. Washington, DC: Inter-‐American Development Bank.

Jakobi, A. (2009) Global Education Policy in the Making: international organisations and lifelong learning, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(4), 473-‐487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767720903412275

Jansen, J. & Rodgers, R. (2001) Cumulating the Intellectual Gold of Case Study Research, Public Administration Review, 61(2), 235-‐246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0033-‐3352.00025

Jupp, V. (1996) Documents and Critical Research, in R. Sapford & V. Jupp (Eds) Data Collection and Analysis. London: Sage.

D. Brent Edwards Jr

146

Kurki, M. (2008) Causation in International Relations: reclaiming causal analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491481

Lemke, T. (2011) Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique. London: Paradigm. Lukes, S. (2005) Power: a radical view, 2nd edn. London: Palgrave. Malen, B. & Knapp, M. (1997) Rethinking the Multiple Perspectives Approach to Education Policy

Analysis: implications for policy–practice connections, Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 419-‐445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268093970120509

Mason, M. (2010) Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). http://nbn-‐resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-‐fqs100387

McGinn, N. (1994) The Impact of Supranational Organizations on Public Education, International Journal of Educational Development, 14(3), 289-‐298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0738-‐0593(94)90042-‐6

Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Phillips, D. & Ochs, K. (2003) Processes of Policy Borrowing in Education: some explanatory and analytic devices, Comparative Education, 39(4), 451-‐461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305006032000162020

Reimers, F. & McGinn, N. (1997) Informed Dialogue: using research to shape education policy around the world. Westport, CN: Praeger.

Rhoten, D. (1999) Global–Local Conditions of Possibility: the case of education decentralization in Argentina. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

Rhoten, D. (2000) Education Decentralization in Argentina: a ‘global–local conditions of possibility’ approach to state, market, and society change, Journal of Education Policy, 15(6), 593-‐619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680930010000218

Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2010) Globalizing Education Policy. New York: Routledge. Robertson, S., Bonal, X. & Dale, R. (2002) GATS and the Education Service Industry: the politics of

scale and global reterritorialization, Comparative Education Review, 46(4), 472-‐496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/343122

Robertson, S., Xavier B. & Roger, D. (2002) GATS and the Education Service Industry: the politics of scale and global reterritorialization, Comparative Education Review, 46(4), 472-‐496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/343122

Samoff, J. (2009) Foreign Aid to Education: managing global transfers and exchanges, in L. Chisholm & G. Steiner-‐Khamsi (Eds) South–South Cooperation in Education and Development. New York: Teachers College Press.

Siedman, I. (2006) Interviewing as Qualitative Research, 3rd edn. New York: Teachers College Press. Smith, S. (2011) Education for Repatriation: refugee education policy-‐making globally and for

Burundian refugees in Tanzania. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Spreen, C.A. (2001) Globalization and Educational Policy Borrowing: mapping outcomes based education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Steiner-‐Khamsi, G. (Ed.) (2004) The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sutton, M. & Levinson, B. (Eds) (2001) Policy as Practice: toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy. Westport: Ablex.

Tsing, A. (2005) Friction: an ethnography of global connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Valiente, J. (2010) EDUCO: entre la agonía y la esperanza, El Diario de Hoy, Miércoles, 11 August, Editorial.

Vavrus, F. & Bartlett, L. (Eds) (2009) Critical Approaches to Comparative Education: vertical case studies from Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Verger, A. (2012) Framing and Selling Global Education Policy: the promotion of public–private partnerships for education in low-‐income contexts, Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 109-‐130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.623242

World Bank/Operations Evaluation Department (1998) Post-‐Conflict Reconstruction: El Salvador: case study summary, Précis, 172. Washington, DC: World Bank.


147

Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. D. BRENT EDWARDS Jr is a visiting scholar at the Universidad Centroamericana in San Salvador, El Salvador, as well as a PhD candidate in international education policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, USA. His research focuses on processes of education policy formation and the decentralization of education governance. With a Fulbright Research Grant he is currently collecting data for his dissertation, which focuses on the EDUCO program in El Salvador, through which the government decentralized the responsibility for education management to the community level. Correspondence: [email protected]

Researching International Processes of Education Policy Formation: Conceptual and Methodological...

Documents

Transcript of Researching International Processes of Education Policy Formation: Conceptual and Methodological...