Page 116 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 116
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
According to Schmidt (2008), ideas differ in levels of generality –
whether specific to policy, encompassing a wider program, or constitut-
ing an underlying philosophy – and types – such as cognitive and norma-
tive ideas. Specific policies present particular policy solutions proposed
by policy makers for adoption. General programmes underpin policy ide-
as and may be cast as paradigms that reflect the underlying assumptions
or organising principles orienting policy. They define “the problems to be
solved by policies, the issues to be considered, the goals to be achieved, the
norms, methods and instruments to be applied, and the objectives and
ideals which all in all frame the more immediate policy ideas proposed as
solutions for any given problem” (Schmidt, 2008: p. 307). Public philoso-
phies are background ideas, acting as underlying assumptions, which are
rarely contested. The content of ideas and the pertaining ideational dis-
cursive activity is divided into cognitive and normative types (Schmidt,
2008). Cognitive ideas serve to justify policies and programmes by speak-
ing to their interest-based logic and necessity. They provide recipes, guide-
lines and maps for political action and explain “what is and what to do”.
Normative ideas attach values to political action and serve to legitimize
the policies in a programme through reference to their appropriateness.
They present how policies and programmes resonate with public philos-
ophies and provide answers to “what one ought to do” (Schmidt, 2008).
As already introduced, discourse is a more overarching concept than
ideas. It refers not just to what is said (ideas) but also to who said what to
whom, where, when, how, and why (discursive interactions). The inter-
active process of discourse may exert a causal influence beyond what dis-
course does in representing ideas and serves not just to express one set of
actors’ strategic interests (cognitive ideas) or values (normative ideas), but
also to persuade others of the necessity and/or appropriateness of a giv-
en course of action (Schmidt, 2008). Discourse institutionalism distin-
guishes between two aspects of discursive interaction, coordinative and
communicative. The coordinative interaction is related to formulating the
content of ideas and sharing a set of cognitive and normative ideas of edu-
cation in epistemic communities. The communicative interaction present
the interactive processes through which these ideas are presented, delib-
erated and legitimated as necessary and appropriate to the general public
(Schmidt, 2008: p. 310).
Although discursive institutionalism was already questioned from
the viewpoint of its necessity to explain policy change [see Ball (2011;
2012) and Schmidt (2012) for the response], many authors exposed its
advantages in studying Europeanization of (education) policies (e.g.
Schmidt and Radaelli, 2004; Wahlström and Sundberg, 2018). Ideas are
114
According to Schmidt (2008), ideas differ in levels of generality –
whether specific to policy, encompassing a wider program, or constitut-
ing an underlying philosophy – and types – such as cognitive and norma-
tive ideas. Specific policies present particular policy solutions proposed
by policy makers for adoption. General programmes underpin policy ide-
as and may be cast as paradigms that reflect the underlying assumptions
or organising principles orienting policy. They define “the problems to be
solved by policies, the issues to be considered, the goals to be achieved, the
norms, methods and instruments to be applied, and the objectives and
ideals which all in all frame the more immediate policy ideas proposed as
solutions for any given problem” (Schmidt, 2008: p. 307). Public philoso-
phies are background ideas, acting as underlying assumptions, which are
rarely contested. The content of ideas and the pertaining ideational dis-
cursive activity is divided into cognitive and normative types (Schmidt,
2008). Cognitive ideas serve to justify policies and programmes by speak-
ing to their interest-based logic and necessity. They provide recipes, guide-
lines and maps for political action and explain “what is and what to do”.
Normative ideas attach values to political action and serve to legitimize
the policies in a programme through reference to their appropriateness.
They present how policies and programmes resonate with public philos-
ophies and provide answers to “what one ought to do” (Schmidt, 2008).
As already introduced, discourse is a more overarching concept than
ideas. It refers not just to what is said (ideas) but also to who said what to
whom, where, when, how, and why (discursive interactions). The inter-
active process of discourse may exert a causal influence beyond what dis-
course does in representing ideas and serves not just to express one set of
actors’ strategic interests (cognitive ideas) or values (normative ideas), but
also to persuade others of the necessity and/or appropriateness of a giv-
en course of action (Schmidt, 2008). Discourse institutionalism distin-
guishes between two aspects of discursive interaction, coordinative and
communicative. The coordinative interaction is related to formulating the
content of ideas and sharing a set of cognitive and normative ideas of edu-
cation in epistemic communities. The communicative interaction present
the interactive processes through which these ideas are presented, delib-
erated and legitimated as necessary and appropriate to the general public
(Schmidt, 2008: p. 310).
Although discursive institutionalism was already questioned from
the viewpoint of its necessity to explain policy change [see Ball (2011;
2012) and Schmidt (2012) for the response], many authors exposed its
advantages in studying Europeanization of (education) policies (e.g.
Schmidt and Radaelli, 2004; Wahlström and Sundberg, 2018). Ideas are
114
