KJEP 18:1 (2021), pp.

43-63
Doi: 10.22804/kjep.2021.18.1.003

Policy analysis frameworks: A phenomenological

study of education policy researchers’ practices*

Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu
Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey
Osman Cekic
Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey

Abstract
Aiming to broaden the discourse on methodology in education policy analysis, this
phenomenological study explores the real-life experiences of policy researchers and the
methodology they follow in their studies. Eleven senior policy researchers holding both
liberal and critical political views of education were interviewed about their approaches
beginning from defining a policy issue to reporting their findings. The results revealed
marked differences in policy researchers’ attitudes and experiences. While policy scholars
with a liberal outlook were found to be driven mainly by data to determine how policies
work, researchers following a critical approach were more likely to base their studies on
theory and to focus on meaning and questions regarding how and why. This paper also
presents a framework to map out a pattern comprising key concepts and questions based
on policy researchers’ approaches to policy analysis.

Keywords: education policy analysis, policy analysis framework, policy cycle, policy
researcher, political views on education

* This study was supported by the Technological and Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) (Application
No: 1059B141500304) and the framework in this study was developed during the overseas part of the first
researcher’s doctoral research. I would like to thank Prof. Kenneth J. Saltman (Educational Leadership and
Policy Studies, UMass Dartmouth, MA) for his mentorship and guidance through the entirety of the study
and during my research fellowship at UMassD.

KEDI Journal of Educational Policy- ISSN 1739- 4341-

© Korean Educational Development Institute 2021, Electronic version: https://www.kedi.re.kr/eng

43
Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu & Osman Cekic

Introduction
Policy analysis, essentially a process that supplies policymakers and other stakeholders
with the necessary knowledge and information to develop, comprehend, and critically
evaluate policies, aims to explore the complex nature of educational issues (Bardach, 2012;
Dunn, 2012). With this aim in mind, policy analysis weighs various alternatives by
comparing their benefits in relation to one or more objectives and/or values so as to allow
policymakers to make informed decisions regarding which policies to implement and how
to implement them in order to reach their policy goals (Alexander, 2013). In other words,
policy analysis is an exploratory process the goal of which is to provide either analysis for
policy that produces knowledge or policy recommendations, or analysis of policy that critically
examines the hows and whys of a policy (Olssen et al., 2004). Policy researchers might
therefore follow different frameworks to conceptualize the policy problem and map its context.
By identifying variable classifications and their relationships, a framework enables
researchers to form a basis for policy analysis studies (Bardach, 2012). Frameworks serve as
a determinant in the conceptualization of the policy problem and its content while
simultaneously offering a flexible approach to produce new questions and a contextual map
(Bayirbag, 2013; Tatto, 2012). In terms of education policy, the literature contains many
analysis frameworks that vary depending on the field of study, the issue addressed, and
the focus of the analysis. In addition, policy researchers’ interpretations of a policy’s
rationale, effects, and conceptualization may be influenced by the researcher’s approach
toward policy analysis. Moreover, researchers following different approaches (e.g.,
traditional and critical) may operate using distinct questions and methods (Diem et al., 2014;
Veselý, 2012; Young & Diem, 2017). Based on the approaches in education politics,
researchers draw on different conceptual frameworks to examine education policies (Jones,
2013; Saltman, 2014).
While there are several frameworks in the literature guiding policy researchers in their
analyses, the extent that researchers draw on these frameworks in practice is unclear.
Further, since factors influencing policies often depend on the lens through which
researchers interpret policies’ rationale, context, effect, and other elements, identifying the
methodology and stages in education policy analysis can be challenging for junior
researchers (Scott, 2017). As a result, it is important to comprehend and internalize how
policy researchers, especially senior and more experienced ones, interpret and discuss their
analysis practices.
This study seeks to explore the process of policy analysis followed by education policy
researchers with different political views of education. To this end, eleven senior education
policy researchers with liberal, critical, and mixed views of education politics were
interviewed to identify the methodological and conceptual foundation underlying their
policy analysis practices. Based on participants’ statements, we developed a framework
comprising a list of questions and concepts outlining the key components to policy analysis
to provide a comprehensive roadmap for policy researchers about how to analyze (e.g.,
where to begin, where to focus, which data to collect, how to interpret data) a policy.
Accordingly, we have sought answers to two main research questions:

(1) What are the steps followed by education policy researchers with different political
views of education in their policy analysis practices?
(2) What would a framework guiding policy analysis research in education look like?

44
 Policy analysis frameworks

Frameworks for analyzing education policies

Policy analysis methods can be classified into two groups: traditional and
interpretive-critical (Diem et al., 2014; Mansfield & Thachik, 2016; Young & Diem, 2017).
Traditional methods seek measurable evidence through the scientific application of
management skills, program design, and implementation to make objective, value-free
assessments using legislation and actions already in practice (Diem et al., 2014; Mansfield
& Thachik, 2016; Yanow, 2000). Studies following traditional methods typically view policy
factors as independent variables that explore policy outcomes post-implementation, as
opposed to the interaction between factors (McDonnell, 2009). Olssen et al. (2004) call this
approach analysis for policy, which takes two forms, namely, policy advocacy and
information for policy. On the other hand, interpretive-critical approaches focus on
meanings related to the policy in question, include a broader range of policy actors, and
expose the debatable nature of policy regarding problem definition, research results, and
arguments for solutions (Mansfield & Thachik, 2016; Yanow, 2000). Similarly, Olssen et al.
(2004) dub this approach analysis of policy, which takes two forms: analysis of policy
determination and effects and analysis of content. Thus, critical perspectives focus on
policies’ beneficiaries vis-à-vis policy effects, the meaning of policy content, and what
actually happens in the policy implementation process. Young and Diem (2017) assert that
an increasing number of policy researchers have recently begun to employ critical
frameworks in policy analysis.
Table 1 depicts examples of studies regarding the frameworks designed to analyze
public and education policies. These frameworks were selected after reviewing the literature
using the keywords framework, policy analysis, and educational policy. This limited number of
works was used to identify similarities and differences in policy analysis processes in the
literature. This literature review also aided the authors in developing the interview form
used in the current study.
The frameworks listed above share similar characteristics and stages interested in
exploring the formulation and implementation processes of policy cycles. A few studies
draw attention to economic concerns, trend themes, and global reconfiguration in education
policy formulation (Bell & Stevenson, 2006; Cheng & Cheung, 1995; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).
Some frameworks offer a linear set of stages to analyze policies while others present a
flexible analysis approach given the complexity of the policy process. For example, Bardach
(2012) developed an eight-step policy analysis process whereas both Alexander (2013) and
UNESCO (2013) laid out specific procedures to be adopted while analyzing policies. Flexible
frameworks, however, take policy as the focal point and attempt to understand it in a way
similar to Ball’s (1993), Jones’s (2013), and Yanow’s (2000) frameworks. Moreover, whereas
some frameworks prioritize policy formulation, others draw on the nature of policy
implementation and the relationships that exist between policy text and action, and even
others do both. For instance, Bell and Stevenson (2006) highlight the power-action
relationships in policy development for both the formulation and implementation processes.
Similarly, Bayirbag’s (2013) framework offers a more holistic perspective on policy analysis,
taking policy implementation as its central point of focus.

45
Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu & Osman Cekic

Table 1. Overview of frameworks in the literature for analyzing educational policies

Researcher(s) and Title of the study Approach Method(s)

year of the study

Cheng and A Framework for The Analysis Quantitative and

Traditional PA
Cheung (1995) of Educational Policies Qualitative
Economic Considerations in
Cheng, Ng, and Quantitative and
Education Policy Making: A Traditional PA
Mok (2002) Qualitative
Simplified Framework
A Practical Guide for Policy Quantitative and
Bardach (2012) Analysis: The Eightfold Path to Traditional PA Qualitative
More Effective Problem Solving
Quantitative
Mingat, Tan, and Tools for Education Policy Traditional PA Statistical
Sosale (2003) Analysis Analyses
Handbook on Education Policy
Analysis and Programming Quantitative and
UNESCO (2013) Traditional PA
Volume 1: Education Policy Qualitative
Analysis
Conducting Interpretive Policy Discourse
Yanow (2000) Interpretive PA
Analysis Analysis
Bell and Education Policy: Process, Discourse
Interpretive PA
Stevenson (2006) Themes, Impacts Analysis
What is Policy? Texts,
Ball (1993) Interpretive-Critical PA Ethnography
Trajectories, and Toolboxes
Understanding Education Policy: Discourse
Jones (2013) The ‘Four Education Interpretive Conceptual Analysis
Orientations’ Framework
Document and
Rizvi and Globalizing Education Policy Critical PA Discourse
Lingard (2010)
Analysis
Policy Analysis for Educational Quantitative and
Alexander (2013) Leaders: A Step-By-Step Critical PA Qualitative
Approach
Learning and Doing Policy
Analysis in Education: Document
Tatto (2012) Examining Diverse Approaches Exploratory inquiry Analysis
to Increasing Educational
Access
A Framework Proposal for Action Based Public Quantitative and
Bayirbag (2013) Public Policy Analysis Policy Analysis Qualitative

Traditional frameworks offer mostly quantitative analysis methods dealing with

empirical evidence, such as cost-benefit-effectiveness and impact analyses, and causal
relationships (Cheng & Cheung, 1995; Cheng et al., 2002; Mingat et al., 2003). Conversely,
the interpretive-critical approach considers the influence of values and power on the policy
process and benefits from textual and policy discourse analysis of policy artifacts
(Alexander, 2013; Ball, 1993; Ball et al., 2012; Bayirbag, 2013; Bell & Stevenson, 2006; Jones,

46
 Policy analysis frameworks

2013; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Tatto, 2012; Yanow, 2000). For instance, some such frameworks
include descriptions of the time, space, and context of a policy (Ball, 2015; Bayirbag, 2013;
Jones, 2013; Tatto, 2012). Tatto’s framework (2012) also draws upon research studies related
to the policy issue at hand. Furthermore, a considerable number of the frameworks noted
above apply a mixed-methods approach (Bardach, 2012; Bayirbag, 2013; Cheng et al., 2002;
Cheng & Cheung, 1995; UNESCO, 2013).
As Bell and Stevenson (2006) point out, the policy presented in the statement of intent,
action plan, or set of guidelines often includes much more than what is actually stated. As
such, since researchers tend to prefer critical frameworks to explain the role of power and
ideology in the policy process (McDonnell, 2009; Young & Diem, 2017), inquiries on what
the policy actually means, who benefits from the policy, and the nature of the policy’s
context all gain importance (Avelar, 2016). Moreover, Burbules and Berk (1999) differentiate
between critical thinking and critical pedagogy, considering them to be related to traditional
and critical approaches, respectively. They state that critical thinking is to seek reasons
and/or justification to do something using empirically demonstrable facts, whereas they
describe critical pedagogy as a point of view that emphasizes social injustice resulting from
relations of unequal power and that is interested in interpretation via seeking meaning and
change through the transformation of inequitable institutions and social relations. Thus,
there is need for a wide variety of theoretical perspectives and methods in critical policy
scholarship (Diem et al., 2018).

Method
As our main objective was to identify the steps followed by educational policy
researchers in their policy analysis practice, this study aims to explore the
theoretical/conceptual and methodological perspectives of policy analysts and how they
frame their policy studies in practice. Since phenomenology enables researchers to explore
individuals’ lived experiences and attitudes toward a specific phenomenon (Moustakas,
1994), we have employed a phenomenological methodology.

Participants

We used purposeful sampling to identify participants, as it allows researchers to focus

on key individuals with the most comprehensive grasp of the phenomenon under study
(Creswell, 2013). Benefiting from the guidance of the research advisor, an education policy
researcher himself, and various networks established through policy conferences, we
initially sought out individuals conducting education policy studies. We then used snowball
sampling to recruit further individuals until data saturation was reached (Patton, 2001).
Two main criteria were considered while selecting participants. First, we aimed to
include researchers holding different political views of education so as to obtain a diversity
of education policy perspectives. Policy scholars with liberal and critical outlooks were
interviewed to represent traditional and critical policy analysis approaches. These political
views embody two of the prevailing orientations in education and can be articulated as: (i)
the liberal outlook, which relates to the knowledge and skills necessary for individual or
market choice and competitive achievement, and (ii) the critical outlook, which refers to

47
Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu & Osman Cekic

alternative values and attempts to restructure social justice issues (Jones, 2013). Whereas
policy liberal researchers presuppose the standardization of student achievements, critical
researchers seek to make the world a better place for everyone through social and
educational change (Saltman, 2014). With regard to the second criterion, since the study was
restricted to policy studies in the field of education, we strove to ensure that participants
consisted primarily of education policy researchers whose research interests included
educational policy and politics.
Using their research activities and academic work as the basis for analysis, participants’
orientations were identified prior to the interviews. Eleven individuals were interviewed, of
whom three had a liberal outlook, two had a mixed critical-liberal outlook, and six had a
critical outlook. Participants were categorized based on the positions they expressed during
the educational policy analysis (i.e., C: critical, L: liberal, and CL: mixed critical-liberal) and
were likewise assigned a number, which resulted in the following designations L1, L2, CL1,
and CL2, C1, C2, etc. Of the 11 participants, two were distinguished professors, one was
a professor emeritus, five were full professors, and two were assistant professors (see Table
2) all of the participants’ departmental affiliations were primarily in educational policy
studies. The number of participants was deemed satisfactory once the information obtained
from them began to resemble each other (Patton, 2001).

Data collection

Building off the literature on policy analysis frameworks, we developed an interview

protocol for use in the semi-structured interviews conducted to gather data for the study
(Creswell, 2013). Questions were formed following a review of the related literature, which
was mostly found to explain the analysis process as (i) defining the problem, (ii) gathering
evidence, (iii) looking for policy alternatives, (iv) evaluating policy outcomes, and (v)
reporting results (Alexander, 2013; Bardach, 2012; Dunn, 2012; Fowler, 2014). Additional
questions were then asked to reveal participant-specific strategies. Through these questions,
the interview protocol focused on researchers’ theoretical perspective, their main reason for
conducting their analysis, the starting point of their analysis, their main guiding questions,
the criteria they used to evaluate policy outcomes, and the methods they used to persuade
their audience.
Depending on participants’ preference, interviews lasting from 30 to 60 minutes were
conducted face-to-face, over the phone, or via Skype. These interviews were voice recorded
upon participants’ consent and later transcribed. The authors asked interviewees for sample
publications and studies which aided the authors to develop a more comprehensive
understanding and greater appreciation of interviewees’ analysis processes.

Data analysis

The complex, inductive process of discerning patterns and themes began with each
interview’s transcription (Patton, 2001). Following transcription, data were coded into
meaningful parts to convey participants’ experiences and insights related to the
methodology they apply during policy analysis. Data were organized and analyzed using
MAXQDA 11.2 qualitative data analysis software, producing codes that were then
transformed into categories, patterns, and themes (Patton, 2001).

48
 Policy analysis frameworks

Although both the theoretical framework on policy analysis and participants’

framework samples provided the main patterns and units for the analysis, we decided to
conduct an inductive analysis to reveal fundamental concepts underlying policy researchers’
perspectives. Accordingly, we attempted to describe the entire analysis process by defining
policy researchers’ attitudes and the limitations they encountered at the starting point of
their analyses all the way to how they persuaded their audience. Moreover, we made use
of an audit trail by compiling feedback from two colleagues during the data analysis
process.

Table 2. Study participants

Participant Geographical Doctoral

code Gender Perspective base Title Affiliated department background
Social and Sociology and
Psychological
C1 M Critical Canada Asst. Prof. Social
Foundations of Anthropology
Education
Educational Curriculum and
C2 M Critical USA Prof. Leadership and Policy Instruction
Studies
Educational
C3 F Critical England Prof. Education Policy Leadership
Global Studies in Philosophy and
C4 M Critical Australia Prof. Education Education
Distinguished Sociology of Sociological
C5 M Critical England Prof. Education Studies
Education Policy,
Distinguished Education
C6 F Critical USA Research and
Prof. Leadership
Administration
International
Critical - Senior Policy
CL1 M USA Education Policy Comparative
Liberal Analyst Education
Critical - Political
CL2 M USA Prof. Education Policy
Liberal Science
Quantitative
Education &
L1 M Liberal USA Asst. Prof. Policy Analysis
Economics of Education
Public Policy and
L2 M Liberal USA Prof. Governance & Economics
Economics
Emeritus Education
L3 M Liberal USA Education Policy
Prof. Psychology

Credibility and validity

Since establishing validity and credibility is vital in qualitative research, several steps
were taken to ensure the study was credible and valid. First, the interview form was

49
Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu & Osman Cekic

examined by and discussed with two experts for conceptual validity, comprehensibility, and
question clarity. Second, interviewees were recruited on a voluntary basis after signing an
informed consent form detailing the nature of the research and possible ethical issues.
Third, the authors completed an interview evaluation form after each interview, kept notes
about the interview, and recorded their initial interpretations. These steps allowed the
authors to improve interviews’ quality by aiding them in developing and asking more
well-rounded questions soliciting more comprehensive answers.
After transcription, the transcribed texts were sent to participants for review, additions,
and corrections. The results of the data analysis were further enriched with quotations from
the interviews so as to furnish pertinent explanations and accounts directly related to their
experiences (Creswell, 2013).
Reflexivity is a useful element in establishing the credibility of phenomenological
analyses as it identifies biases and assumptions and ‘brackets’ them out (Patton, 2001). Since
the current study focuses on revealing experienced scholars’ attitudes toward education
policy analysis, we sought to minimize whatever biases toward the topic they might have
by focusing on the methodology they follow in their research and analyses.

Findings

The results of the study are presented in two parts. The first illustrates how policy
researchers conduct analyses and their experiences are organized into three sections
covering nine themes: pre-analysis (1) theoretical perspective, (2) main objectives, (3) main
questions; during analysis (4) starting point, (5) defining the policy problem, (6) gathering
evidence, (7) policy alternatives and reporting analysis, (8) criteria to evaluate policy, and (9)
persuading the audience. The second part contributes to the greater literature on policy
analysis by introducing a framework based on the real-life experiences and perspectives
offered by the participating policy researchers.

Pre-analysis

The most remarkable result of this study is that all participants reported not using any
specific previously-defined framework in their research and instead used their own
framework or drew upon available theories, thinking tools, or questions. For example, C4
described how he approached policy analysis, stating that he would ask several rhetorical
questions:

I use a phrase, ‘If policy analysis is the answer, then what is the
question?’ Unless you’re clear about the question, I don’t know what
you’re doing an analysis for, or for whom... So, questions matter
rather than tools, or framework, or whatever. So, much of what I
write is driven by the questions that I have of any given policy.

When asked about their theoretical perspective, liberal analysts (L1, L2, L3, CL1) reported
that they did not use theory directly in their analyses and instead used statistical data
analyses to focus on how a policy works. For example, L3 revealed the following: “This

50
 Policy analysis frameworks

may shock you, but I do not have one. I’m am an empiricist and data lead me. Data must
be interpreted.” Similarly, L2 stated, “I’m often not trying to do theory development or
theory testing. I’m more often trying to do empirical evaluations.”
Unsurprisingly, education policy researchers in the critical group were found to ground
their work in theory. One such policy analyst (C4) with an analytical philosophy background
explained his approach: “I’m always mindful of how much time and space matter. By that,
we need to know where we are located, under which conditions, under what circumstances,
and how we are located and connected to the past and future.”
It appears that critical policy researchers draw on social theories and their
repercussions to develop a comprehensive understanding about the multifaceted nature of
education policies. For example, C1 described his approach using the term immanent critique,
which has two components. The first component is the importance of reading policies on their
own terms vis-à-vis different philosophical positions, while also providing insight on how
policies prescribe solutions to problems. The other is historization, which identifies problems
and solutions within broader structures (e.g., political economy, culture, politics) in order
to understand the limitations and deeper set of explicit values and meanings of the policy
within discourse.
In addition to understanding the policy issue before engaging in analysis research, each
policy analyst had a specific objective in mind when conducting analyses. In this study,
participants stated that they contributed to educational policy debates by drawing attention
to their areas of interest. Policy researchers’ main purposes in conducting policy analysis
research are to promote human development (C1), question power (C1), shake common
sense (C1), situate a public problem through interviews (C2, C3), intervene in a public
problem (C2), show what is and what ought to be (C4), provide tools to help people make
sense of a policy (C5), explore what is happening on the ground (C6, CL1), improve policy
and practice (L1, L2, CL2), and engage in the democratic process (L3).
The above objectives illustrate a fundamental difference between critical and liberal
analysts. Critical policy researchers emphasize policies’ objectives, whereas liberal researchers
focus on improving policies’ practical aspects. In other words, critical policy analysts
examine the hows and whys underpinning policies to discover deeper values, principles,
questions, and ethical sensibilities, rather than to produce knowledge or policy recommendations
(C1, C3).
Furthermore, participants emphasized that asking questions helped shape their
approach and guided them to a starting point and area of focus in their analyses.
Participants mentioned the questions displayed in Table 3 while discussing the main
questions guiding them during their analyses.

51
Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu & Osman Cekic

Table 3. Main questions guiding policy researchers in their analyses

Political views of Questions

education
What is the empirical relationship between policy concepts? (C1)
Why and how do the policy actors value the policy? (C2)
How do we situate the policy in terms of material and symbolic interests? (C2)
What positions do people take during the policy process and why? (C3)
How is the public problem represented by scholars? (C1, C2, C4)
Who wants the policy? Who produces the policy? (C2, C4)
Critical outlook
What is the (public) problem? (C1, C2, C5)
Where do policies fit in a global context? (C5)
Who is served and how? (C6)
How do people align themselves toward the policy? (C6)
What is happening with people involved on the ground level at this
point and why? (C6)
Who benefits from the policy and who does not? (CL1, C4)
How do national policies affect local policy actors? (CL1)
Critical-Liberal outlook
How does the set of practices influence or change the behaviors of
other agencies or educational institutions? (CL2)
Liberal outlook Does the program/policy work? How? (L1, L2)
What are the people saying about the policy? (L3)

The questions in Table 3 indicate that critical policy researchers ask questions
concerning the definition of policy problems and the positioning of policy actors around a
policy and their benefits, whereas liberal policy researchers question the efficiency and
effectiveness of a policy and its repercussions. Critical-liberal policy researchers, however,
ask questions regarding external factors affecting policy formation and policies’
beneficiaries. For instance, C2 stated that he dealt with public problems regarding
stakeholders’ material (i.e., economic) and symbolic (i.e., ideological) interests. He also
stated that he would ask how policy actors evaluated the policy with regard to (i) learning
and teaching and (ii) the nature of learning and knowledge from both an epistemological
and pedagogical perspective. On the other hand, L3 summarized his process as follows:
“You look at the problem, you look at the data, and then you look around the world for
solutions.” Regarding questions for policy beneficiaries, CL1 explained his reason for asking
who benefits from a policy:

The main question I always ask in my research is, “Who benefits

from this? Who’s benefitting from the way things are currently
operating?” Then, the follow-up question to that is: “Who isn’t
benefitting?” These questions generally lead you toward a better
understanding of what the motivations might be for a specific policy,
forum, or implementation strategy. And then you figure out who’s
being impacted and why. I mean, you might find legacy institutional
practices that aren’t helping and people who are just doing things
because that’s the norm.

52
 Policy analysis frameworks

Questions pertaining to the stakeholders involved in the policy are mainly asked by
policy researchers to gain an understanding of the policy itself. C3, who uses Bourdieu’s
thinking tools, expressed her approach as follows:

What position people take in a specific field, why they take that
position, what their knowledge frames are, how it is regarded by
people, who knows about things, and how people give them
approval and acclaim for what they’re doing. But, how in the end
people might —as Bourdieu said—misrecognize what’s taking place
and what the game in play is.

During analysis

The next question asked to participants related to their starting point when conducting
analyses. Their answers revealed that they tended to focus on several points: conversations
around the policy issue (CL1, CL2, L2, L3), conceptualizing the problem (C2, C3, C5), policy
discourse (C1), texts (C4), question(s) (L2, C5), and data (L1). Here, C2 stated that his
starting point was to question not only how advocacy of a given policy justifies itself, but
also what and why policy stakeholders are doing with regard to the policy in question. CL1
reported that he began his analyses by exploring the policy’s timeline in policy documents
and by determining who the actors are and how they benefit from the policy. Commenting
on the starting point for his analyses, L2 expressed the following:

For me, the starting point is a question that I want to know the
answer to. So, I don’t start with the literature. I don’t read the
literature and say, ‘What’s the hole in the literature?’ Rather, I start
with a question, like, ‘Is this a good policy?’ And I start with that
question and I say, ‘Okay, how am I going to answer that question?’
Well, then I have sub-questions like…

It may be deduced from the above statement that policy research following a liberal
approach starts with questions focusing on evidence for policy efficiency. On the other
hand, C4 reported his starting point to be texts related to the policy, a finding that supports
the hypothesis that critical policy researchers prefer to gain a comprehensive understanding
of policies:

My starting point is always the text, what is written down. Then I

ask questions about what has gone into what the text says. I start
off with a document – any document – and then ask people
questions about that document in order to frame and figure out just
what the politics around that document are that led to the
document’s production in order to see how, based on that document,
people develop their positions into a new document. So, I always
start off with a document, its history, and its politics.

53
Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu & Osman Cekic

The last two statements by liberal and critical participants reveal that critical analysts
are primarily interested in describing a policy issue using policy texts and discourse,
whereas liberal analysts start with evidence for policy outcomes.
With certain objectives and questions in mind before conducting analyses, policy
scholars moved on to defining the policy problem. Participants’ statements reveal attitudes
pertaining to defining problems. For instance, L2, L3, and CL1 reported that the policy
problem had already been defined and publicly discussed. Moreover, L2 expressed that
policies themselves generate the questions asked and solutions pursued, stating the
following: “It’s like, ‘Here’s a policy problem, here’s a possible solution that somebody’s
going to try to implement,’ and I look at that like, ‘Oh, that’s interesting, I wonder if it
works.’” In addition, CL2 stated that he relied on literature related to the policy issue under
study and sought to interpret different attitudes while defining the problem. CL1, however,
explained that since the problem’s definition is contested and that since people frame the
issue differently, it is important to draw out multiple perspectives to perform a satisfactory
analysis, adding the following:

[I ask,] “Does that play out empirically?” Then, [I ask,] “Does the
way that any constituency envisions the solution actually work? And
again, for whom?”Because things often work for some people and
not for others, so you want to be clear about how it functions.

In contrast to liberal policy analysts’ tendency to provide multifaceted definitions of

policy issues, some of the critical analysts (C2, C3) mentioned that policy issues were not
a problem whatsoever. For example, C3 expressed that policy practitioners had been told
what the problem is, arguing that although public education does not have any major
problems, some teachers and politicians do not perform their professional duties adequately.
She strongly emphasized the question, “What have we been told the problem is?”
Furthermore, C2 preferred to define policy issues as public problems, emphasizing that
public problems differ from social and policy problems because the former represent the
interests of many people. He exemplified his idea as follows:

There will be an individual problem that is the product of social

forces and everyone is encouraged to see it simply as one’s own
individual problem, and it’s very oppressive for people to learn that
problems they didn’t create are theirs to solve. Sure, someone might
be unhealthy, but what makes people unhealthy? There are lots of
factors that make people unhealthy, like environmental pollution,
depending on where you live and whether you have access to
healthy food and what not. So, there are a lot of social factors going
into what makes people healthy. But, people are told their health is
their own individual responsibility. If you’re unhealthy, it’s not that
you should get a gym membership and go exercise there. No, that’s a
consumerist solution. In short, this is an example of translating public
problems into individual problems as opposed to translating individual
problems into public problems, like our social problems. And they get
other people to do something to address or organize people.

54
 Policy analysis frameworks

The findings detailed up to this point elucidate the beginning of policy analyses.
Gathering evidence represents the data collection process in policy analysis research. When
participants were asked how they gathered evidence in their analyses, they indicated that it
depended on the questions they asked. Although they reported using methods and types
of data that best suited the research question(s), their methods and techniques varied
depending on whether they held a liberal or critical outlook. Participants used a variety of
methods, including causal impact analyses, regression analyses, cost-benefit analyses,
discourse analyses, post-structuralism, Bourdieu’s set of tools, immanent critiques, the new
sociology of education, political economies, and policy genealogy. In addition, several
scholars were influenced by the ideas and theories of other researchers, especially in terms
of which methodology they followed while performing policy studies.
Seeking the meaning of policies and inquiring into the how and why, critical policy
researchers seem to prefer conceptual works based on discourse analysis. As a result, their
work might be considered more interpretive and subjective in nature. On the contrary,
liberal policy researchers were found mainly to perform data-based analyses using
quantitative methods like causal impact and regression analyses. However, liberal
researchers also reported that research questions determined which tools they used to
collect and analyze data, indicating that they also employ qualitative methods.
Adopting ethnography in his analyses, C5 clarified that “the way in which structures,
discourses, and policies work on and through the lives of ordinary people set them within a
broader perspective and bigger picture.” In addition, L3 cited the algorithms used in long-term
studies in the literature, stating that they were helpful in providing an historical approach.
Finally, C4, who followed an eclectic approach, commented on the evidence-gathering process,
underlining that evidence is never neutral since it is influenced by policy analysts’ own values
and interests, in addition to which topics they choose to address.
Participants reported that they employed quantitative, qualitative, and eclectic
approaches to tackle their research question(s). Several mentioned using multiple qualitative
methods in their research, including interviews, academic meetings, fieldwork, ethnography,
and discourse analysis (C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, CL1). Although liberal analysts did not
explicitly cite qualitative methods when responding to this interview question, they did
state that they sometimes referred to qualitative data in their research (L1, L3). Moreover,
several analysts falling mostly in the liberal group, stated using surveys, regression
analyses, and causal impact analyses. Again, some participants affirmed using both
paradigms in an eclectic or mixed-methods approach (L3, C4).
Participants stated that they used several data sources in their research, including policy
documents (e.g., reports or data from international policy institutions like OECD, the World
Bank, and the World Economic Forum), academic and journal databases, online libraries
(e.g., ERIC, JSTOR), the Internet (e.g., Google, Google Scholar), library databases,
governmental databases and data sets, bookstore databases (e.g., Amazon), and networks.
CL1, for example, discussed the role of policy documents in his studies as follows:

Examining policy documents is a critical step because the language

used in legislation is what drives the process. When I think about
a policy, I think about the concepts of policies and all the different
ingredients that go into a policy as a process that the policy
undergoes, as well as the timeline for drafting a policy. I mean it’s

55
Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu & Osman Cekic

not like a policy pops up overnight. There’s a three to five-year

negotiation process during which different constituencies present
different options, asymmetries in power and governance, and
non-governmental organizations.

After collecting and analyzing data, policy analysts derive conclusions about the policy
issue from the resulting evidence. Considering policy alternatives is one of way to illustrate
how a policy works. Analysts differed as to whether policy alternatives were applicable in
their studies. L1 and L2 mentioned that they created simulations based on what if
questions. L1, for example, stated, “Though not always, I sometimes perform simulations of
an alternative policy to examine what would happen if another alternative had been
implemented.” C3, on the contrary, stated that in order to examine a policy, she considers
the bigger picture instead of trying to understand the realities of policy implementation:
“When I’m working on alternatives, it’s not about what the outcome is or what the
alternative is; it’s about what type of education system we want for society.” One of the
critical-liberal analysts (CL2), however, focused on policy makers and their decision-making
process when discussing what’s next in policy studies, explaining that policy researchers
should do a better job translating their findings into practice for policymakers:

We need to interpret our findings from the perspective of

policymakers and translate them in a relevant, meaningful way so
that policymakers will be able to use them and ask what differences
the results make from a policy perspective.

Critical policy analysts (C1, C2), however, underlined that they benefited from good
examples, and attempted to move beyond the dominant discourse.

Reporting analysis

Before reporting how they proceded, participants were first asked what criteria they
used to critique and evaluate policy outcomes. The majority did not give concrete answers
about their criteria, discussing instead the complexity of policy evaluation. Most of their
comments revolved around evidence-based evaluations and interpreting conflicts between
theory and data (L1, L2, CL1, C1, C4). One participant (CL2) noted that policy researchers
needed to contextualize results instead of leaving them as statitstical findings so that policy
makers can understand and make use of them. One critical policy analyst (C5) emphasized
the importance of raising questions that propel researchers and other stakeholders to devise
alternative ways of implementing and improving policies. In addition, L3 specified that his
commitment to democracy was an important factor while critiquing and evaluating policies.
Speaking on this issue, C4 gave an example of his critical approach to policy analysis,
stating that while the proposal to add an extra two hours of instruction to help improve
children’s grades might appear positive in terms of outcomes, its effects on younger
children may be detrimental, considering society’s moral obligations toward children and
the rights they possess. This policy researcher emphasized the difficulty in describing a
policy in simple black-and-white terms. A liberal analyst (L2) also mentioned that he
focused on the policies’ results over the size of their effect and avoided making

56
 Policy analysis frameworks

recommendations calling for policies to be extended or rejected.

Since it is important to report and disseminate research results after conducting policy
research, participants were asked how they persuaded their audience. Their answers reveal
that depending on the seniority of the researcher and the scope of his/her studies and
projects, one’s audience varies between academics, teachers, and policymakers. C1, for
example, stated that “finding a very clear thematic focus and then working through a series
of arguments based on that thematic focus is the best way of persuading people.” CL1 and
L2 considered the strength of their work to be the provision of up-to-date and verified
information, whereas C1 stated that craft and evidence quality were important. In addition,
C4, C6, CL1, and L1 pointed out that the language used varies depending on one’s
audience. Those participants who had reached the level of full professorship (C2, L3)
mentioned that since they were able to write popular works on policy issues, they had the
ability to use clear, direct language that made it easier to attract public attention. All
participants specified that they use diverse media to disseminate their research results,
including social media, television, radio, and teaching, in addition to journal articles, books,
conference papers, and workshops.
Policy analysis is a complex process and our interviews reveal that while there are
specific steps followed in policy analysis, the questions that drive analyses vary by policy
and analyst, in a way representing not only the characteristics of the policy but also the
analyst’s norms and area of focus. Thus, while there is no one way to conduct policy
analyses, it is possible to map out a pattern comprising key concepts and questions to aid
analysis of education policies. The following section builds off the literature and ideas
expressed during interviews to form a framework for novice policy analysts.

Framework proposal

Figure 1 presents a framework developed based on policy analysts’ experiences with

and attitudes toward policy analysis. The critical concepts addressed, the distinct actions
taken, and the questions asked by policy analysts are organized into similar themes related
to policy analysis. The proposed framework seeks to provide an holistic perspective for
analyzing policy problems in diverse educational settings.
The resulting framework is composed of four main parts: (i) positioning the policy, (ii)
defining policy actors, (iii) practical experiences, and (iv) evaluation and improvement. The
initial step in analyzing a policy is to position it in its proper time, place, and context,
which requires reading and understanding the policy on its own terms and by historicizing
it. The second step is to define policy actors, and this involves determining which groups
have a vested interest in the policy in order to understand the relationships between power
and policy development, as well as who benefits from the policy. Since practice plays a
critical and active role in policy enactment, the next step is to investigate the real-life
experiences of policy actors and institutions, as this will provide valuable insight into
whether and how the policy actually works. Moreover, by examining policies’ texts and
surrounding discourse while keeping in mind that every policy contains its own set of
values and understandings, researchers can develop a better understanding of policy
implementation. Raising questions during analyses enables researchers and other
stakeholders to contemplate and even demonstrate alternative methods not only to improve
policies but also to implement them more effectively.

57
 Defining Practical Experiences Evaluation and
Positioning Improvement
the Policy Policy Actors

Researchers examine different perspectives about the context and nature of the policy Does the policy
problem work?
How does it work?
Immanent Critique: Who is producing
Reading the policy on the policy?
its own terms and
historicizing it to Institutional effects: How
situate the problem and What is happening with can the set of practices
prescribed solutions and people on the ground change the behavior of
Why and how do other agencies or schools?
to situate it within policy actors value level at this point and
broader context. the policy? why?

Simulations and good

How do national examples around the
What positions do world
policy actors take policies impact policy
Reflect back in time actors in practice?
and space: Consider and why?
the past, present, and
future
Contextualization of
Who does and does research results
What are similar not benefits from
policies around the the policy?
world? Raising questions to
compel policy actors to
consider various
Researchers use policy artifacts: i.e., texts, policy and public discourse, and datasets to alternatives
gather evidence

Figure 1. Framework for analysis of education policies based on policy researchers’ practices
 Policy analysis frameworks: A phenomenological study of education policy researchers’ practices

Education policies during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic can be taken as an example
of how this framework can be applied to an actual policy case. During this pandemic,
policies in many cases establish online education as a primary instruction method. However,
considering the first step of the developed framework, these policies need to be positioned
based on their own terms—the conditions of a pandemic instead of traditional educational
philosophies. In addition, it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic will influence many
education policy issues in the upcoming years, such as the physical infrastructure of schools
and alternative models in delivering instruction. While positioning education policies during
the pandemic, policy makers and analysts should be careful when historicizing and
contextualizing the policies so that they offer clear explanations and interpretations. In
addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced national and international institutions and
government bodies to renew or review their established educational policies by stopping
face-to-face education early on, or by waiting to see how the virus will diffuse. In
developing such policies, countries have developed their policies considering not only the
students’ education but also the needs of families and both economic and manufacturing
factors, something related to the second step of the framework, that is, defining the policy
actors. This, in turn, will inevitably affect beneficiaries in different ways. Thus, policy researchers
must also consider the narratives of beneficiaries in the analysis process as practical
experiences to explore how the policy actually works in practice. Lastly, during the evaluation
and improvement stage, policy researchers need to analyze comprehensively these contextual
factors and practical experiences to provide a better understanding of the educational policy
during the pandemic, and develop alternative ways of thinking in order to improve policy
implementation.
An applied example of how the proposed framework is employed in an actual policy
problem is the analysis of the education incentive policy for private education institutions
in the case study of Turkey (Ozturk-Calikoglu, 2018). In this example, to explore an holistic
description of the incentive policy applied in Turkish private education institutions, the
policy was examined based on the research questions developed through the main steps of
the framework given above. Here, the framework directed the research by going beyond an
analysis of national strategy documents and statistical data and facilitated exploration of the
practical experiences by adding the perspectives of central and local governmental actors,
school administrators, and parents as beneficiaries. Hence, a more comprehensive evaluation
and more useful recommendations were reached through the steps delineated in the
framework. Accordingly, researchers can draw on this framework considering their research
design, policy issue, and to what extent researchers want to examine a policy. Furthermore,
while the framework is developed based on the steps followed by the educational policy
scholars and thus it is primarily education-oriented, it can also be used for other fields of
public or social research where the steps and questions are applicable.

59
Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu & Osman Cekic

Discussion
The findings for liberal and critical policy researchers portray the arguments
underpinning traditional and critical approaches to policy analysis. Liberal researchers were
found to focus on how policies work (i.e., efficacy) and relied on data-based investigation.
Similar to the traditional approach, liberal policy analysts tended to disregard the nature of
policy problems and arguments regarding solutions and instead follow a linear analysis
process (Diem et al., 2014). Critical researchers, however, were found to be more interested
in texts, discourse, practice, and questions related to why in addition to the meaning and
benefits of policies, their beneficiaries, and their temporal and spatial contexts in texts,
discourse, practice, and questions related to why. This, coupled with the fact that critical
policy researchers employ different tools to comprehend the nature of policy issues (Diem
et al., 2018; Fischer, 2003), indicates that they base their research on a specific theory/theoretical
frame or have a specific objective in their mind prior to beginning (Diem et al., 2014;
Fischer, 2003). In other words, critical researchers might be said to use critical pedagogy
since they concentrate more on raising questions about policy issues seeking to empower
oppressed stakeholders in pursuing emancipation (Burbules & Berk, 1999).
The results demonstrate that, regardless of objective, the research question largely
drives the policy analysis process, and particularly the methods used to gather evidence and
deal with questions. In this study, critical policy analysts were found to employ fewer
traditional policy analysis techniques than liberal ones. Diem et al. (2014) highlight that
three data collection tools are generally used in policy analysis: existing datasets,
documents, and fieldwork. Policy researchers have recently begun employing different
methods than those found in traditional policy analysis approaches and have focused on
exploring policy complexity while making use of various theoretical lenses (McDonnell,
2009; Young & Diem, 2017). Furthermore, critical analysts have been found to make more
frequent use of qualitative research methods in accordance with their research objectives
(Mansfield & Thachik, 2016).
Doctoral background and disciplinary orientation may provide a clue as to why the
participant policy scholars adopted either liberal or critical perspectives. For instance, liberal
analysts in this study have backgrounds in psychology, economics, and quantitative policy
analysis disciplines, which can easily lead them to rely more on statistical data and to focus
more on macro-level policy evaluation. On the other hand, a background in sociology,
anthropology, and education philosophy that the critical analysts in the study have may
lead to inquiries more linked to perspectives of different beneficiaries. Thus, they may have
also benefit from their individual experiences while evaluating and recommending policies.
This finding illustrates the importance of disciplinary background and orientation in
approaching a scientific problem, in this case a policy problem. Indeed, Becher and Trowler
(2001) indicate that researchers are deeply committed to and tend to maintain disciplinary
traditions in addressing and shaping the problems, selecting and analyzing data sources,
and interpreting findings within the framework of particular theories.
Although policy analysts, and critical analysts in particular, admitted to having
difficulties deeming a policy as being good or bad in black-and-white terms, Bardach (2012)
argues that a set of evaluative criteria must be decided upon prior to conducting an analysis
used to make judgments about a policy’s projected outcomes as opposed to policy
alternatives. This might correspond to a more traditional approach based on the decision

60
 Policy analysis frameworks: A phenomenological study of education policy researchers’ practices

as to whether a policy works. In addition, both traditional and critical approaches take into
account policies’ unintended consequences, as policy formulation and implementation might
differ as a result of practitioners’ regenerative role in the implementation process (Ball et
al., 2012; Bardach, 2012).
In addition to the research examined in this study, several other studies on policy
analysis adopt a rational or critical outlook. With the growing number of multi-disciplinary
studies in policy analysis theory and with practice varying to the extent it does on different
policy issues based on time and place, a great number of frameworks, models, tools, and
techniques have emerged (Diem et al., 2014; Scott, 2017). Further, since each field of study
brings its own assumptions related to the policy issue in question (Jones, 2013; Tatto, 2012),
researchers need to employ a specific/unique conceptual framework or perspective. Here,
our framework provides a pattern for educational policy analysis based on the lived
experiences of scholars working on educational policy and politics, economics of education,
privatization initiatives in education, school choice, voucher-charter schools, and a number
of other issues.
The proposed framework integrates insight from two distinct policy approaches (i.e.,
traditional and interpretative/critical approaches), and differs from available frameworks in
that it is both practice-based and composed of questions and concepts covering the entirety
of the analysis process. Further, the framework begins by positioning the policy and ends
with evaluation and improvement; however, it is neither a one-way analysis nor a
step-by-step approach to policy analysis. Adams (2016) also emphasizes the positioning
theory in policy research, and asserts that texts and discourse are used in attempts to
explain and frame a policy, which then produce what he terms position calls. These position
calls, in turn, result in discursive acts that form policy. Accordingly, the framework has the
potential to serve as a question-based roadmap for complicated mechanisms used in policy
analysis models/methods. In addition, policy analysts could use it to design their studies
with appropriate questions given in the presented framework, depending on the scope and
feasibility of the policy issue in question.

Conclusion
Based on the real-life experiences of policy researchers, this study illustrates how
education policy scholars with different perspectives on policy analysis conduct their
research. While policy scholars with a liberal outlook were found to be driven mainly by
data to determine how policies work, researchers following a critical approach were more
likely to base their studies on theory and focus on meaning and questions regarding how
and why. This paper also presents a framework to map out a pattern comprising key
concepts and questions, based on policy researchers’ approaches to policy analysis. Thus,
the framework presented simplifies the complicated process of policy analysis in education.
It may also play a role in offering a more concrete image of the analysis process that
addresses a variety of actors, such as policy makers, interest groups, and practitioners.
However, the results are limited to the experiences of the education policy researchers
included in the study and to only two approaches on educational policy (i.e., liberal and
critical). The range and depth of the practices adopted by policy analysts might be further
elaborated upon by including a wider range of perspectives, specifically conservative and
neo-liberal ones.

61
Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu & Osman Cekic

Address for correspondence

Halime Ozturk-Calikoglu, Ph.D.
Faculty of Education, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University
Anafartalar Campus, 17100, Çanakkale, Turkey
Email: halimeozturk@comu.edu.tr

References
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
Alexander, N. A. (2013). Policy analysis for educational leaders: A step-by-step approach.
Pearson.
Avelar, M. (2016). Interview with Stephen J. Ball: Analyzing his contribution to
education policy research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(24). http://dx.doi.org/
10.14507/epaa.24.2368
Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in
the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630930130203
Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy
research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1015279
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in
secondary schools. Routledge.
Bardach, E. (2012). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective
problem solving (4th ed.). Sage.
Bayirbag, M. K. (2013). Kamu politikası analizi için bir çerçeve önerisi [A framework
proposal for public policy analysis]. In M. Yıldız & M. Z. Sobacı (Eds.), Kamu politikası:
Kuram ve uygulama [Public policy: Theory and practice] (pp. 44–65). Adres Yayınları.
[In Turkish]
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and
the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). SRHE & Open University Press.
Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. Routledge.
Burbules, N., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations,
differences, and limits. In T. S. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical theories in
education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 45–65). Routledge.
Cheng, Y. C., & Cheung, W. M. (1995). A framework for the analysis of education
policies. International Journal of Educational Management, 9(6), 10–21.
Cheng, Y. C., Ng, K. H., & Mok, M. M. C. (2002). Economic considerations in education
policy making: A simplified framework. International Journal of Educational Management,
16(1), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210415514
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Diem, S., Young, M. D., & Sampson, C. (2018). Where critical policy meets the politics
of education: An introduction. Educational Policy, 33(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177

62
 Policy analysis frameworks: A phenomenological study of education policy researchers’ practices

%2F0895904818807317
Diem, S., Young, M. D., Welton, A. D., Mansfield, K. C., & Lee, P.-L. (2014). The
intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 27(9), 1068–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.916007
Dunn, W. N. (2012). Public policy analysis (5th ed.). Pearson.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices.
Oxford University Press.
Fowler, F. C. (2014). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Jones, T. (2013). Understanding education policy: The ‘four education orientations’ framework.
Springer.
Mansfield, K. C., & Thachik, S. L. (2016). A critical policy analysis of Texas’ closing the
gaps 2015. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(3), 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/
epaa.v24.1991
McDonnell, L. M. (2009). A political science perspective on education policy analysis. In
G. Sykes, B. Schneider, D. N. Plank, & T. G. Ford (Eds.), Handbook of education
policy research (pp. 59–70). Routledge.
Mingat, A., Tan, J.-P., & Sosale, S. (2003). Tools for education policy analysis. World Bank.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/
9781412995658
Olssen, M., Codd, J., & O’neill, A. M. (2004). Education policy: Globalization, citizenship and
democracy. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221501
Ozturk-Calikoglu, H. (2018). Analysis of the education incentive policy for private education
institutions in Turkey [Doctoral dissertation, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey].
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Routledge.
Saltman, K. J. (2014). The politics of education: A critical introduction. Paradigm.
Scott, C. (2017). The choice of formal policy analysis methods. In M. Brans, I.
Geva-May, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Routledge handbook of comparative policy analysis.
Routledge.
Tatto, M. T. (Ed.). (2012). Learning and doing policy analysis in education: Examining diverse
approaches to increasing educational access. Sense.
UNESCO. (2013). Handbook on education policy analysis and programming: Volume 1
education policy analysis. UNESCO Bangkok.
Veselý, A. (2012). A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies. KEDI
Journal of Educational Policy, 9(2), 323–347.
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Sage.
Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (Eds.). (2017). Critical approaches to education policy analysis:
Moving beyond tradition. Springer.

63