CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 206Education and Public PolicyQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEducational Research and Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Policy Document Analysis: A Practical Educational Leadership Tool and a Qualitative Research Method

Open access
Cardno, Carol·2019·Educational Administration: Theory and Practice
DOI 10.14527/kuey.2018.016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper presents policy document analysis as practical tool that can be put to valuable use by educational leaders and can also be adopted as a research method. Educational leaders are at the forefront of policy interpretation and consequently need knowledge and skills that enable them to analyse policy as part of their work in developing, implementing and reviewing organisational policy. They need to be able to look behind the policy to know what forces brought it into being; to tap into policy history to know how it was constructed; and most importantly, evaluate the way it is working to achieve its stated purposes. The analysis of policy documents is also an established and appealing qualitative research method, especially for students engaged in postgraduate research associated with educational leadership and policy studies because policy documents offer background insights into understanding educational problems in both research and practice. In this paper advantages and disadvantages associated with using documentary analysis as a qualitative research method are outlined and practical document analysis tools and approaches are presented.

Overview

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 · 10.14527/kuey.2018.016

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Alexander, N. A. (2013). Policy analysis for educational leaders: A step-by-step approach. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
  2. Atkinson, P ., & Coffey, A. (2004). Analysing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, methods and practice (2nd ed., pp. 56-75). London. England: Sage.
  3. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods . Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  4. Busher, H. (2006). Understanding educational leadership: People, power and culture . New York, NY: Open University Press.
  5. Cardno, C. (1999). Appraisal policy and implementation issues for New Zealand schools. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13 (2), 87-97.
  6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education . Abingdon, England: Routledge.
  7. Dick, P . (2004). Discourse analysis. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 203-213). London, England: Sage.
  8. Duffy, B. (2010). The analysis of documentary evidence. In J. Bell (Ed.), Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science (5th ed., pp. 124-139). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
  9. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change . Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
  10. Fitzgerald, T . (2012). Documents and documentary analysis. In A. J. R. Briggs, M. Coleman & M. Morrison (Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership and management (pp. 296-308). London, England: Sage.
  11. Forster, N. (1994). The analysis of company documentation. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 147-166). London, England: Sage.
  12. George, A. (2009). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to content analysis. In K. Krippendorff & M. A. Bock (Eds.), The content analysis reader (pp. 144-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  13. Kilmister, T . (1993). Boards at work: A new perspective on not-for profit board governance. Wellington: NFP Press.
  14. Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7 (1), 1-23.
  15. Lingard, B., & Ozga, J. (2007). Introduction: Reading education policy and politics. In B. Lingard & J. Ozga (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader of educational policy and politics . London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
  16. Marshall, H. (1994). Discourse analysis in an occupational context. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative methods in organisational research (pp. 91-106). London, England: Sage.
  17. Mulderrig, J. (2003). Consuming education: A critical discourse analysis of social actors in New Labour's education policy. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 1 (1), 97-123.
  18. Perryman, J. (2012). Discourse analysis. In A. J. R. Briggs, M. Coleman & K. Morrison (Eds.), Research methods in educational leadership and management (pp. 309-321). London, England: Sage.
  19. Platt, J. (1981a). Evidence and proof in documentary research 2: Some shared problems of documentary research. Sociological Review, 29 (1), 53-66.
  20. Platt, J. (1981b). Evidence and proof in doumentary research 1: Some specific problems of documentary research. Sociological Review, 29 (1), 31-52.
  21. Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record . Cambridge, England: Polity.
  22. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
  23. Razik, T , A. (2001). Fundamental concepts of educational leadership and management . Upprt Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  24. Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997). Education policy and the politics of change . London, England: Routledge.
  25. Thomas, S. & Watson, L. (2011). Quality and accountability: Policy tensions for Australian school leaders. In T . T ownsend & J. MacBeath (Eds.), International handbook of leadership for learning (pp. 189-208). London: Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cardno, C.
Corresponding author
Cardno, Carol
Venue
Educational Administration: Theory and Practice
Publisher
UK Zhende Publishing Limited Company
Published
2019-01-15
Volume
24
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1300-4832 (ISSN-L)
  • 2148-2403
DOI
10.14527/kuey.2018.016
OpenAlex
W2915812872
Cited by
206
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
49.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Administration Theory and Practice journal (publishedVersion)
  • Unitec Research Bank (Unitec Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Education and Public Policy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
educational leadership, document analysis, qualitative research, policy interpretation, policy evaluation, policy history

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