Discourse Game of Educational Policy: Framing Competition Among Stakeholders in Policy Communication
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52152/RCR.V14.2Keywords:
Educational Policy, Discourse, Policy Communication, Stakeholders, Framing Discourse TheoryAbstract
This paper explores the central role of communication in informing the education policy with a particular interest in how different stakeholders of the education sector, that is, governments, educators, students, and the society in general use competitive framing to alter the population opinion and how they shape the processes of making of policies. The study examines how these actors are using the process of narrative construction in order to integrate educational issues with their interests which is done through a systematic literature review (SLR). The findings emphasize the fact that communication is not just a medium through which policy is passed, but it is dynamic in nature where policy is constructed through discourse. Specific focus is given to such values as equity and efficiency which tend to emerge in such framings, particularly, in those of social media-based public discourse. Social media sites enhance the power of the stakeholders to influence the mainstream discourses, hence, controlling the policy debates trend. The study sheds light on ways in which discourse framing can be used in policy communication to provide guidance to policy makers on how they can become aware of competing interests. In the end, this piece of work enhances our comprehension of the impact of strategic communication on the policy debate in education and it also emphasized the importance of inclusive and balanced discourse in the policy making process.
References
Adams, K., & Kreiss, D. (2021). Power in ideas: A case-based argument for taking ideas seriously in political communication. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108950954
Adams, P. (2016). Education policy: Explaining, framing and forming. Journal of Education Policy, 31(3), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1084387
Alazmi, A. A. (2024). Examining the influence of international organizations in globalizing education policy in Kuwait: A qualitative study. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(6), 1649–1666. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2023-0469
Al-Thani, G. (2024). Comparative analysis of stakeholder integration in education policy making: Case studies of Singapore and Finland. Societies, 14(7), 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14070104
Angus, L. (2015). School choice: Neoliberal education policy and imagined futures. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(3), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.823835
Anshori, M., Pawito, P., Kartono, D. T., & Hastjarjo, S. (2022). Comparative framing: Media strategy in public communication policy. KnE Social Sciences, 126–139.
Antoninis, M., Alcott, B., Al Hadheri, S., April, D., Fouad Barakat, B., Barrios Rivera, M., … Weill, E. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? https://doi.org/10.54676/UZQV8501
Bekius, F., & Gomes, S. L. (2023). A framework to design game theory-based interventions for strategic analysis of real-world problems with stakeholders. European Journal of Operational Research, 309(2), 925–938.
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2023). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002023
Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., & Schubert, T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy: Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, 52(6), 104765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765
Fotheringham, P., Harriott, T., Healy, G., Arenge, G., & Wilson, E. (2022). Pressures and influences on school leaders navigating policy development during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3760
Foucault, M. (1971). Orders of discourse. Social Science Information, 10(2), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847101000201
Garrett Delavan, M., Freire, J. A., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2023). Conscripted into thinking of scarce, selective, privatized, and precarious seats in dual language bilingual education: The choice discourse of mercenary exclusivity. Current Issues in Language Planning, 24(3), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2022.2077032
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
Harvey, A. (2019). Becoming gamesworkers: Diversity, higher education, and the future of the game industry. Television & New Media, 20(8), 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419851080
Hibberd, A. J. (2017). How university policymakers problematize sexual violence on their campus: A policy discourse analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Canada.
Howe, P. J., Szöcsik, E., & Zuber, C. I. (2022). Nationalism, class, and status: How nationalists use policy offers and group appeals to attract a new electorate. Comparative Political Studies, 55(5), 832–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211036033
Indrawati, S. M., & Kuncoro, A. (2021). Improving competitiveness through vocational and higher education: Indonesia’s vision for human capital development in 2019–2024. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 57(1), 29–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2021.1909692
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2015). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 14(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213519356
Kaldewey, D. (2018). The grand challenges discourse: Transforming identity work in science and science policy. Minerva, 56(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9332-2
Kovačević, J., Rahimić, Z., & Šehić, D. (2018). Policy makers’ rhetoric of educational change: A critical analysis. Journal of Educational Change, 19(3), 375–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9322-7
Luoma, M. (2024). Public education, multinational citizenship, and territorial legitimacy: Analyzing the 2004 and 2023 Ontario curricula on Indigenous peoples. Frontiers in Political Science, 6, 1478530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1478530
Menzies, L. (2024). ‘Populism’ and competing epistemic communities in English educational policy: A response to Craske and Watson. British Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 1576–1593. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3950
Mochizuki, J., Magnuszewski, P., & Linnerooth-Bayer, J. (2018). Games for aiding stakeholder deliberation on nexus policy issues. In Managing water, soil and waste resources to achieve sustainable development goals: Monitoring and implementation of integrated resources management (pp. 93–124). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75163-4_5
Mockler, N., & Redpath, E. (2022). Shoring up “teacher quality”: Media discourses of teacher education in the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia. In The Palgrave handbook of teacher education research (pp. 1–29). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59533-3_42-1
Pechdin, W., Sarnkhaowkhom, C., Kanthanetr, S., & Willemse, M. P. (2023). Retelling social inequalities in the era of market competition: Review and discussion for sustainable welfare development. Frontiers in Sociology, 8, 1085278. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1085278
Sam, C. H. (2019). Shaping discourse through social media: Using Foucauldian discourse analysis to explore the narratives that influence educational policy. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(3), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218820565
Sayed, Y., Ahmed, R., & Mogliacci, R. (2018). The 2030 global education agenda and teachers, teaching and teacher education.
Seiffert-Brockmann, J., Diehl, T., & Dobusch, L. (2018). Memes as games: The evolution of a digital discourse online. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2862–2879. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817735334
Serrano-Velarde, K. (2015). Words into deeds: The use of framing strategy in EU higher education policy. Critical Policy Studies, 9(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2014.918898
Smith, R. J. (2020). Teaching Trump: A frame analysis of educators’ responses to anti-democratic discourse. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5331
Song, W., & Zhao, K. (2024). Navigating the innovation policy dilemma: How subnational governments balance expenditure competition pressures and long-term innovation goals. Heliyon, 10(15).
Souza, J. D. F. (2024). UNESCO, World Bank, and OECD: Global perspectives on the right to education and implications for the teaching profession. Educar em Revista, 40, e94756. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0411.94756-T
Spillane, J. P., Seelig, J. L., Blaushild, N. L., Cohen, D. K., & Peurach, D. J. (2019). Educational system building in a changing educational sector: Environment, organization, and the technical core. Educational Policy, 33(6), 846–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819866269
Sun, J., & Tang, M. (2025). The dynamics of education public opinion governance: An evolutionary game theory approach. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 59(2).
Sundin, A., Andersson, K., & Watt, R. (2018). Rethinking communication: Integrating storytelling for increased stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis. Environmental Evidence, 7(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0116-4
Van Hulst, M., & Yanow, D. (2016). From policy “frames” to “framing”: Theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014533142
Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Altinyelken, H. K. (2018). Global education policy and international development: A revisited introduction. In Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues and policies (Vol. 2).
Wilcox, K. C., Khan, M. I., & Leo, A. (2024). Principals’ discursive framing and communications and educators’ job satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of School Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846241271448
Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (2018). Doing critical policy analysis in education research: An emerging paradigm. In Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 79–98). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_5
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The philosophy of the journal is to be open and to make all articles accessible. It is our belief that open access is a must in the future of science.
Authors who publish with RCR accept a slightly modified Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
You, as author, retain the copyrights for your paper, but the Review of Communication Research is granted exclusivity for publication of the article. The agreement allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and publication in this journal. We do not want third parties to make a commercial use of the article, unless we agree it with authors.
The journal will run an open review process as well as a traditional peer review process.
When the manuscript is accepted for publication, it will get a doi number and get available online to facilitate early citation.
The journal will post the published article to many public repositories for further diffusion and permanence.
You, as author, are permitted and encouraged to post your work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on your website), as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
If you have any doubts, please, contact the editor: editor@rcommunication.org
Many thanks for submitting your work to this journal.
