英国教育政策中的 "民粹主义 "和相互竞争的认识论群体:对 Craske 和 Watson 的回应

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Loic Menzies
{"title":"英国教育政策中的 \"民粹主义 \"和相互竞争的认识论群体:对 Craske 和 Watson 的回应","authors":"Loic Menzies","doi":"10.1002/berj.3950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article constitutes a ‘reply and alternative’ to two papers that appeared in a 2021 Special Issue of <i>British Educational Research Journal</i>. Both articles drew on theories of populism as a political logic to explain recent trends in England's education policy. I begin by highlighting how the contributors mobilise ‘populist’ political logics within their own ‘anti-populist’ discourse. I then argue that the theory of epistemic communities, borrowed from the field of public policy analysis, offers an alternative interpretation of the dynamics described in (and exemplified by) the two articles. This alternative interpretation foregrounds the values, beliefs and policy enterprises of two rival communities that seek to influence education policy through the supply of expertise. I argue that attending to how these communities function helps explain how a new group of policy entrepreneurs has come to constitute an increasingly influential ‘counter-epistemic community’ and established a mutually beneficial trade in legitimacy with English policy makers. To date, the theory of epistemic communities has been under-utilised in the study of education policy, but applying the theory to education policy in England provides new insights into how these communities function when the nature of expertise is contested. England's educational policy context also exemplifies the importance of ‘fit’ between policy makers and experts’ beliefs, and the role of policy makers in assembling and curating communities of experts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51410,"journal":{"name":"British Educational Research Journal","volume":"50 3","pages":"1576-1593"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Populism’ and competing epistemic communities in English educational policy: A response to Craske and Watson\",\"authors\":\"Loic Menzies\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/berj.3950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article constitutes a ‘reply and alternative’ to two papers that appeared in a 2021 Special Issue of <i>British Educational Research Journal</i>. Both articles drew on theories of populism as a political logic to explain recent trends in England's education policy. I begin by highlighting how the contributors mobilise ‘populist’ political logics within their own ‘anti-populist’ discourse. I then argue that the theory of epistemic communities, borrowed from the field of public policy analysis, offers an alternative interpretation of the dynamics described in (and exemplified by) the two articles. This alternative interpretation foregrounds the values, beliefs and policy enterprises of two rival communities that seek to influence education policy through the supply of expertise. I argue that attending to how these communities function helps explain how a new group of policy entrepreneurs has come to constitute an increasingly influential ‘counter-epistemic community’ and established a mutually beneficial trade in legitimacy with English policy makers. To date, the theory of epistemic communities has been under-utilised in the study of education policy, but applying the theory to education policy in England provides new insights into how these communities function when the nature of expertise is contested. England's educational policy context also exemplifies the importance of ‘fit’ between policy makers and experts’ beliefs, and the role of policy makers in assembling and curating communities of experts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Educational Research Journal\",\"volume\":\"50 3\",\"pages\":\"1576-1593\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Educational Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.3950\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"British Educational Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.3950","RegionNum":3,"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: 0

摘要

本文是对《英国教育研究杂志》2021 年特刊中两篇论文的 "回应和替代"。这两篇文章都以民粹主义理论为政治逻辑,解释了英格兰教育政策的近期趋势。我首先强调了撰稿人如何在自己的 "反民粹主义 "话语中调动 "民粹主义 "政治逻辑。然后,我认为,借用公共政策分析领域的认识论社区理论,可以对这两篇文章中描述的(以及所体现的)动态提供另一种解释。这种替代性解释强调了两个对立群体的价值观、信仰和政策企业,这两个群体试图通过提供专业知识来影响教育政策。我认为,关注这些群体的运作方式有助于解释一个新的政策企业家群体是如何构成一个影响力日益增大的 "反认识论群体",并与英国政策制定者建立互利的合法性交易的。迄今为止,认识论社群理论在教育政策研究中一直未得到充分利用,但将该理论应用于英格兰的教育政策,则为我们提供了新的视角,让我们了解当专业知识的性质受到争议时,这些社群是如何发挥作用的。英格兰的教育政策背景也体现了政策制定者与专家信仰之间 "契合 "的重要性,以及政策制定者在组建和管理专家社区方面的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Populism’ and competing epistemic communities in English educational policy: A response to Craske and Watson

This article constitutes a ‘reply and alternative’ to two papers that appeared in a 2021 Special Issue of British Educational Research Journal. Both articles drew on theories of populism as a political logic to explain recent trends in England's education policy. I begin by highlighting how the contributors mobilise ‘populist’ political logics within their own ‘anti-populist’ discourse. I then argue that the theory of epistemic communities, borrowed from the field of public policy analysis, offers an alternative interpretation of the dynamics described in (and exemplified by) the two articles. This alternative interpretation foregrounds the values, beliefs and policy enterprises of two rival communities that seek to influence education policy through the supply of expertise. I argue that attending to how these communities function helps explain how a new group of policy entrepreneurs has come to constitute an increasingly influential ‘counter-epistemic community’ and established a mutually beneficial trade in legitimacy with English policy makers. To date, the theory of epistemic communities has been under-utilised in the study of education policy, but applying the theory to education policy in England provides new insights into how these communities function when the nature of expertise is contested. England's educational policy context also exemplifies the importance of ‘fit’ between policy makers and experts’ beliefs, and the role of policy makers in assembling and curating communities of experts.

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
British Educational Research Journal
British Educational Research Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The British Educational Research Journal is an international peer reviewed medium for the publication of articles of interest to researchers in education and has rapidly become a major focal point for the publication of educational research from throughout the world. For further information on the association please visit the British Educational Research Association web site. The journal is interdisciplinary in approach, and includes reports of case studies, experiments and surveys, discussions of conceptual and methodological issues and of underlying assumptions in educational research, accounts of research in progress, and book reviews.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信