回应:政策?政策研究?多么荒谬的吗?

IF 4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Critical Studies in Education Pub Date : 2021-05-27 DOI:10.1080/17508487.2021.1924214
S. Ball
{"title":"回应:政策?政策研究?多么荒谬的吗?","authors":"S. Ball","doi":"10.1080/17508487.2021.1924214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is no way that I can address the wide range of issues raised in the exemplary collection of papers on policy sociology. These are cutting edge pieces by world-class scholars that lay out analytic possibilities for future work. Perhaps what I can do, very briefly, from the space and time of policy research in which I now stand, and as other contributors do, is to look back and look forward and think against or beyond where we have got to and where we might go next. This does not properly engage with individual papers but rather with some of the commitments and sensibilities they share and hold on to. When I began to try to engage with something that Jenny Ozga called policy sociology (which she and others discuss in this issue), there was not much in the way of extant education policy research in the sociology of education, apart from Jenny’s own work and that of the estimable Roger Dale (see references in Jenny’s paper), and the studies done by Ted Tapper and Brian Salter (e.g. Salter & Tapper, 1981) and McPherson and Raab (1988) – that drew on a more mainstream political science approach. What I was working on when I read these books and papers was an interview study of actors involved in and around England’s 1988 Education Reform Act, published as Politics and Policymaking in Education (Ball, 1990). That was a kind of hybrid between my ethnographic sensibilities (from before) and the beginnings of my engagement with Foucault, in an attempt to explore the capture of policy by neoliberal intellectuals and its re-articulation within neoliberal discourses. Further musing on the interplay of these two different orders of account (ethnographic and discursive) led later to a set of considerations of what doing policy sociology might look like: (Ball, 1993, 2015; Tamboukou & Ball, 2003). Apart from Foucault lurking in the background probably the most important influence on Politics and Policymaking in Education and my later work on the shift from government to governance (e.g. Ball & Junemann, 2012) was Bob Jessop (who gets little mention in the papers in this special issue) and his theorisation of new forms and modalities of the capitalist state. In different but closely related ways all of these early studies were trying to make sense of how policy gets done rather than what policy does. That is, initially the focus was on who does policy and with what ideas. Latterly attention shifted, for some analysts, to how policy forms the objects about which it speaks. That is, the attempt to understand how","PeriodicalId":47434,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17508487.2021.1924214","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response: Policy? Policy research? How absurd?\",\"authors\":\"S. Ball\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17508487.2021.1924214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is no way that I can address the wide range of issues raised in the exemplary collection of papers on policy sociology. These are cutting edge pieces by world-class scholars that lay out analytic possibilities for future work. Perhaps what I can do, very briefly, from the space and time of policy research in which I now stand, and as other contributors do, is to look back and look forward and think against or beyond where we have got to and where we might go next. This does not properly engage with individual papers but rather with some of the commitments and sensibilities they share and hold on to. When I began to try to engage with something that Jenny Ozga called policy sociology (which she and others discuss in this issue), there was not much in the way of extant education policy research in the sociology of education, apart from Jenny’s own work and that of the estimable Roger Dale (see references in Jenny’s paper), and the studies done by Ted Tapper and Brian Salter (e.g. Salter & Tapper, 1981) and McPherson and Raab (1988) – that drew on a more mainstream political science approach. What I was working on when I read these books and papers was an interview study of actors involved in and around England’s 1988 Education Reform Act, published as Politics and Policymaking in Education (Ball, 1990). That was a kind of hybrid between my ethnographic sensibilities (from before) and the beginnings of my engagement with Foucault, in an attempt to explore the capture of policy by neoliberal intellectuals and its re-articulation within neoliberal discourses. Further musing on the interplay of these two different orders of account (ethnographic and discursive) led later to a set of considerations of what doing policy sociology might look like: (Ball, 1993, 2015; Tamboukou & Ball, 2003). Apart from Foucault lurking in the background probably the most important influence on Politics and Policymaking in Education and my later work on the shift from government to governance (e.g. Ball & Junemann, 2012) was Bob Jessop (who gets little mention in the papers in this special issue) and his theorisation of new forms and modalities of the capitalist state. In different but closely related ways all of these early studies were trying to make sense of how policy gets done rather than what policy does. That is, initially the focus was on who does policy and with what ideas. Latterly attention shifted, for some analysts, to how policy forms the objects about which it speaks. That is, the attempt to understand how\",\"PeriodicalId\":47434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Studies in Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17508487.2021.1924214\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Studies in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2021.1924214\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2021.1924214","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

我没有办法解决在政策社会学的模范论文集中提出的广泛问题。这些都是世界级学者的前沿作品,为未来的工作提供了分析的可能性。也许我能做的,简单地说,从我现在所处的政策研究的空间和时间,以及其他贡献者所做的,就是回顾过去,展望未来,思考我们已经取得的成就,以及我们下一步可能走向的方向。这并没有正确地涉及到个别论文,而是涉及到它们所共有和坚持的一些承诺和情感。当我开始尝试接触一些珍妮Ozga称为政策社会学(她和其他人讨论这个问题),并没有太多的现存的教育政策研究的社会学教育,除了珍妮的工作,可尊敬的罗杰·戴尔(见珍妮的论文中引用),泰德攻丝机的研究和布莱恩·索尔特(例如索尔特&攻丝机,1981)和麦克弗森(1988)——拉布,吸引了更多主流政治科学的方法。当我阅读这些书籍和论文时,我正在做的是对参与英国1988年教育改革法案及其周围的演员的访谈研究,发表在《教育中的政治和政策制定》(Ball, 1990)上。这是我的民族志敏感性(从以前开始)和我与福柯接触的开始之间的一种混合体,我试图探索新自由主义知识分子对政策的捕捉及其在新自由主义话语中的重新表达。进一步思考这两种不同的账户顺序(民族志和话语)的相互作用,后来导致了一系列关于政策社会学可能是什么样子的考虑:(Ball, 1993,2015;Tamboukou & Ball, 2003)。除了潜伏在背景中的福柯,可能对教育中的政治和政策制定以及我后来从政府转向治理的工作(例如Ball和Junemann, 2012)最重要的影响是鲍勃·杰索普(他在本期特刊的论文中很少提及)和他关于资本主义国家新形式和模式的理论。以不同但密切相关的方式,所有这些早期研究都试图弄清楚政策是如何实施的,而不是政策做了什么。也就是说,最初的重点是谁制定政策,用什么想法。对一些分析人士来说,最近的注意力转移到了政策是如何形成它所谈论的对象上。也就是说,试图理解其中的原因
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Response: Policy? Policy research? How absurd?
There is no way that I can address the wide range of issues raised in the exemplary collection of papers on policy sociology. These are cutting edge pieces by world-class scholars that lay out analytic possibilities for future work. Perhaps what I can do, very briefly, from the space and time of policy research in which I now stand, and as other contributors do, is to look back and look forward and think against or beyond where we have got to and where we might go next. This does not properly engage with individual papers but rather with some of the commitments and sensibilities they share and hold on to. When I began to try to engage with something that Jenny Ozga called policy sociology (which she and others discuss in this issue), there was not much in the way of extant education policy research in the sociology of education, apart from Jenny’s own work and that of the estimable Roger Dale (see references in Jenny’s paper), and the studies done by Ted Tapper and Brian Salter (e.g. Salter & Tapper, 1981) and McPherson and Raab (1988) – that drew on a more mainstream political science approach. What I was working on when I read these books and papers was an interview study of actors involved in and around England’s 1988 Education Reform Act, published as Politics and Policymaking in Education (Ball, 1990). That was a kind of hybrid between my ethnographic sensibilities (from before) and the beginnings of my engagement with Foucault, in an attempt to explore the capture of policy by neoliberal intellectuals and its re-articulation within neoliberal discourses. Further musing on the interplay of these two different orders of account (ethnographic and discursive) led later to a set of considerations of what doing policy sociology might look like: (Ball, 1993, 2015; Tamboukou & Ball, 2003). Apart from Foucault lurking in the background probably the most important influence on Politics and Policymaking in Education and my later work on the shift from government to governance (e.g. Ball & Junemann, 2012) was Bob Jessop (who gets little mention in the papers in this special issue) and his theorisation of new forms and modalities of the capitalist state. In different but closely related ways all of these early studies were trying to make sense of how policy gets done rather than what policy does. That is, initially the focus was on who does policy and with what ideas. Latterly attention shifted, for some analysts, to how policy forms the objects about which it speaks. That is, the attempt to understand how
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Studies in Education
Critical Studies in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Critical Studies in Education is one of the few international journals devoted to a critical sociology of education, although it welcomes submissions with a critical stance that draw on other disciplines (e.g. philosophy, social geography, history) in order to understand ''the social''. Two interests frame the journal’s critical approach to research: (1) who benefits (and who does not) from current and historical social arrangements in education and, (2) from the standpoint of the least advantaged, what can be done about inequitable arrangements. Informed by this approach, articles published in the journal draw on post-structural, feminist, postcolonial and other critical orientations to critique education systems and to identify alternatives for education policy, practice and research.
期刊最新文献
Public education and teacher professionalism in an age of accountability Queer youth and critical sexuality education pedagogies within networked publics: implications for school-based practice Grappling with wicked problems: teacher professionalism and pedagogical mappings for reparative futures The role of online crisis actors in teachers’ work and lives A response to Variyan and Edwards-Groves
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1