CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 337Global Educational Policies and ReformsEducation and Public PolicyEvaluation and Performance Assessment

The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis

Open access
Diem, Sarah, Young, Michelle D., Welton, Anjalé D., Mansfield, Katherine Cumings, Lee, Pei-Ling·2014·International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
DOI 10.1080/09518398.2014.916007
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

What counts as critical policy analysis in education? Over the past 30 years, a tightening of national educational policies can be seen in the USA and across the globe. Over this same period of time, a growing number of educational policy scholars, dissatisfied with traditional frameworks, have used critical frameworks in their analyses. Their critical educational policy work has contributed to a unique intellectual landscape within education: critical policy analysis. This article presents a qualitative exploration of the critical policy analysis approach to educational policy studies. Participants included scholars known to utilize critical theoretical frameworks and methods in their research. Through a historical approach that makes use of oral history interviews with educational policy, we developed an understanding of the critical approach to policy studies, its appeal among critical education policy scholars, and the rationales driving its use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09518398.2014.916007

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Under conditions of policy ambiguity, variability in leadership capacity, knowledge, and risk tolerance can produce uneven conditions for educators and students, reinforcing differences in access, guidance, and instructional opportunity.

    “Under such ambiguity, however, variability in leadership capacity, knowledge, and risk tolerance can produce uneven conditions for educators and students, reinforcing differences in access, guidance, and instructional opportunity (Arar et al., 2025; Diem et al., 2014).”

    From Policy Silence as Governance: AI Decision-Making, Responsibility, and Risk in K–12 Education (2026) · cites this paper as Diem et al., 2014

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says education policies can advantage some groups and disadvantage others, and Engaged and activist research (page unavailable) discusses building educators’ capacity to use policy in local schools. These passages support the general concern about unequal conditions, but do not link policy ambiguity or variation in leaders’ knowledge and risk tolerance to differences in access, guidance, or instructional opportunity. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Non-decision-making is a consequential policy choice that shapes practice through ambiguity rather than directive control.

    “Such non-decision-making must be understood as a consequential policy choice that shapes practice through ambiguity rather than directive control (Diem et al., 2014).”

    From Policy Silence as Governance: AI Decision-Making, Responsibility, and Risk in K–12 Education (2026) · cites this paper as Diem et al., 2014

    The “Power and voice in policy” section (page unavailable) treats what policy does not say and which problems remain undefined as consequential subjects for analysis. The “Policy constructions” section (page unavailable) also discusses how policy enactment affects students. Neither passage describes non-decision-making as a policy choice or says that it shapes practice through ambiguity rather than directive control. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. Ackerman, D. J. (2006). The costs of being a child care teacher: Revisiting the problem of low wages. Educational Policy, 20, 85-112. doi:10.1177/0895904805285283 · DOI
  2. Adams, D. (1991). Planning models and paradigms. In R. V. Carlson & G. Awkerman (Eds.), Educational planning: Concepts, strategies, and practices (pp. 5-20). New York, NY: Longman.
  3. Aleman, E. (2007). Situating Texas school finance policy in a CRT framework: How "substantially equal" yields racial inequity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 525-558. doi:10.1177/0013161X07303276 · DOI
  4. Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59, 249-270. doi:10.3102/00346543059003249 · DOI
  5. Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 62, 67- 92.
  6. Apple, M. (1982). Education and power. London: Routledge.
  7. Atwood, E. D. (2011). San Antonio v. Rodriguez: Understanding Texas school finance history through a Latino critical race theory framework (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
  8. Ball, S. J. (1991). Politics and policy making in education. London: Routledge.
  9. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories, and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10-17.
  10. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  11. Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research: A personal review of recent education policy and policy research. British Educational Research Journal, 23, 257- 274. doi:10.1080/0141192970230302 · DOI
  12. Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34, 119-130. doi:10.1080/03050069828225 · DOI
  13. Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: Policy Press.
  14. Becker, G. (1986). The economic approach to human behavior. In J. Elster (Ed.), Rational choice (pp. 108-122). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  15. Bernal, J. L. (2005). Parental choice, social class and market forces: The consequences of privatization of public services in education. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 779-792. doi:10.1080/02680930500293825 · DOI
  16. Blackmore, J. (1997). Level playing field? Feminist observations on global/local articulations of the re-gendering and restructuring of educational work. International Review of Education, 43, 439-461. doi:10.1023/A:1003038021606 · DOI
  17. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  18. Brewer, C. A. (2008). Interpreting the policy past: The relationship between education and antipoverty policy during the Carter administration (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
  19. Brewer, C. A. (2014). Historicizing in critical policy analysis: The production of cultural histories and microhistories. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27, 273-288.
  20. Burke, P. (2004). What is cultural history? Cambridge: Polity Press.
  21. Capper, C. A. (1999). (Homo)sexualities, organizations, and administration: Possibilities for in(queer)y. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 4-11.
  22. Chartier, R. (1988). Cultural history: Between practices and representations (L. G. Cochrane, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
  23. Chase, S. E. (2008). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 651-679). London: SAGE.
  24. Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York, NY: The New Press.
  25. deLeon, P., & Vogenback, D. M. (2007). The policy sciences at a crossroads. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 3-14). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
  26. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press.
  27. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  28. Dumas, M. J., & Anyon, J. (2006). Toward a critical approach to education policy implementation: Implications for the (battle)field. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 149-168). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  29. Dunn, W. N. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  30. Elster, J. (1986). Introduction. In J. Elster (Ed.), Rational choice (pp. 1-33). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  31. Fenwick, T. J. (2010). (un)Doing standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy, 25, 117-133. doi:10.1080/02680930903314277 · DOI
  32. Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  33. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019924264X.001.0001 · DOI
  34. Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  35. Gale, T. (2001). Critical policy sociology: Historiography, archaeology and genealogy as methods of policy analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 16, 379-393. doi:10.1080/02680930110071002 · DOI
  36. Gillborn, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 485-505. doi:10.1080/02680930500132346 · DOI
  37. Gilliland, A., & McKemmish, S. (2004). Building an infrastructure for archival research. Archival Science, 4, 149-197. doi:10.1007/s10502-006-6742-6 · DOI
  38. Ginwright, S., Noguera, P., & Cammarota, J. (2006). Beyond resistance! Youth resistance and community change: New democratic possibilities for practice and policy for America's youth. New York, NY: Routledge.
  39. Green, A. (1999). The houses of history: A critical reader in twentieth-century history and theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  40. Honig, M. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in educational policy implementation: Confronting complexity. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
  41. Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 303-342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  42. Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 35-57. doi:10.1080/09518390500450144 · DOI
  43. Levin, H. M. (1988). Cost-effectiveness and educational policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 51-69. doi:10.3102/01623737010001051 · DOI
  44. Levinson, B. A. U., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23, 767-795. doi:10.1177/0895904808320676 · DOI
  45. Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. doi:10.4324/9780203465509 · DOI
  46. Lopez, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 68-94. doi:10.1177/0013161X02239761 · DOI
  47. Lugg, C. A. (2003). Sissies, faggots, lezzies, and dykes: Gender, sexual orientation, and a new politics of education? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 95-134. doi:10.1177/0013161X02239762 · DOI
  48. Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D., & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting schools: "Testing" the "theory of action". Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113- 132. doi:10.3102/01623737024002113 · DOI
  49. Marshall, C. (1997). Dismantling and reconstructing policy analysis. In C. Marshall (Ed.), Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from primary and secondary schooling (pp. 1-39). London: The Falmer Press.
  50. Marshall, C. (1999). Researching the margins: Feminist critical policy analysis. Educational Policy, 13, 59-76. doi:10.1177/0895904899131006 · DOI
  51. Marshall, C. (2000). Policy discourse analysis: Negotiating gender equity. Journal of Education Policy, 15, 125-156.
  52. Marshall, C., & Young, M. D. (2006). Gender and methodology. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gender and education (pp. 63- 78). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  53. McDonnell, L. M. (2009). A political science perspective in education policy analysis. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 57-70). New York, NY: Routledge.
  54. In P. McLaren & J. M. Giarelli (Eds.), Critical theory and educational research (pp. 1- 22). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  55. Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. (1992). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations (3rd ed.). Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.
  56. Mosen-Lowe, L. A. J., Vidovich, L., & Chapman, A. (2009). Students "at-risk" policy: Competing social and economic discourses. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 461-476. doi:10.1080/02680930902759712 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Nagel, S. S. (1984). Contemporary public policy analysis. Birmingham, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
  58. Ostrum, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 35- 72). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  59. Peterson, P. (1970). Forms of representation: Participation of the poor in the community action program. The American Political Science Review, 64, 491-507. doi:10.2307/1953845 · DOI
  60. Popkewitz, T. (1984). Paradigm and ideology in educational research. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
  61. Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  62. Riddell, R. (2005). Government policy, stratification and urban schools: A commentary on the Five-year strategy for children and learners. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 237- 241. doi:10.1080/0268093052000341421 · DOI
  63. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (Eds.). (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
  64. Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Policy archaeology: A new policy studies methodology. Journal of Education Policy, 9, 297-316. doi:10.1080/0268093940090402 · DOI
  65. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). How social construction of target populations contributes to problems in policy design. Policy Current, 3(1), 1-4.
  66. Shaker, P., & Heilman, E. E. (2008). Reclaiming education for democracy: Thinking beyond No Child Left Behind. New York, NY: Routledge.
  67. Sirotnik, K. A., & Oakes, J. (1986). Critical inquiry for school renewal: Liberating theory and practice. In K. A. Sirotnik & J. Oakes (Eds.), Critical perspectives on the organization and improvement of schooling (pp. 3-93). Boston, MA: Klower Nijhoff. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-4229-5 · DOI
  68. Stanfield, J. (1993). Epistemological considerations. In J. Stanfield & R. Dennis (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp. 16-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  69. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks of U.S. Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  70. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
  71. Valenzuela, A., & López, P. D. (2011, April). Shaping the political echo chamber: Chican@ activism, political awareness, and engaged policy. Paper presented at the annual National Association for Chicano and Chicana Studies Tejas Foco Conference, Pasadena, CA.
  72. Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call to complexity. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 153-167. doi:10.3102/0013189X08318050 · DOI
  73. Weimer, D. (1995). Institutional design. Boston, MA: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-0641-2 · DOI
  74. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
  75. Winton, S. (2010). Character education, new media, and political spectacle. Journal of Education Policy, 25, 349-367. doi:10.1080/02680931003624532 · DOI
  76. Winton, S. (2013). Rhetorical analysis in critical policy research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 158-177.
  77. Young, M. D. (1999). Multifocal educational policy research: Toward a method for enhancing traditional educational policy studies. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 677- 714. doi:10.3102/00028312036004677 · DOI
  78. In M. D. Young & L. Skrla (Eds.), Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership (pp. 265-278). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Diem, S., Young, M. D., Welton, A. D., Mansfield, K. C., & Lee, P.-L.
Affiliations
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • UCEA, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Corresponding author
Diem, Sarah
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-08-18
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
1068-1090
ISSN
  • 0951-8398 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5898
DOI
10.1080/09518398.2014.916007
OpenAlex
W2131790935
Cited by
337
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 4
FWCI
78.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Educational Policies and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Education and Public Policy
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
critical policy analysis, critical theory, intellectual history, national education policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review