Download FOUCAULT'S DISCOURSE THEORY AND METHODOLOGY and more Lecture notes Art in PDF only on Docsity!
FOUCAULT’S DISCOURSE THEORY AND METHODOLOGY:
AN APPLICATION TO ART EDUCATION POLICY DISCOURSE 1970-
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Betty Jane Cataldi, B.A., M.A.
The Ohio State University 2004
Dissertation Committee: Professor Sydney Walker, Advisor Approved by Professor Vesta Daniel
Professor Margaret Wyszomirski (^) Department of Art EducationAdvisor
ii
ABSTRACT
Much scholarly criticism has been written about the rapidly changing arts education curricular theories and policies of the last thirty years. These diverse, sometimes polarized, orientations alternately have emphasized curriculum content, instructional methods and evaluation and have advocated for various program structures. The critique often has been ideologically biased and relied on unclear philosophical distinctions. Overly dependent on criticism by individual scholars, practitioners, artist, advocates and policymakers, such critique seldom has documented systematically the broad policy processes and structures that inevitably transform curriculum ideology as policy is formulated. Recognizing, curriculum orientations effect more than student learning, this study examines the influence of these curriculum debates on the formation of ideas, ideas that eventually have informed arts education policy agendas. Substantial policy research in arts education, however, often is limited due to a lack of reliable policy research methods. This study recognizes a need for a coherent theoretical framework, methodology and model tailored to the needs of policy research in an arts education environment. The philosophical writings of Michel Foucault and his outline of an archeological mode of discourse inquiry are examined for their relevance to idea formation in policy research. Through textual analysis, the model analyses three discourse organizations/communities (the Arts, Education and Americans Panel, The Getty Institute for Education in the Arts, and The Consortium of National Arts Education
iv
To Donald, for all his love and support
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to remember James Hutchens, my adviser, who started with me on this intellectual journey and who has continued to guide me in spirit. I wish to thank Vesta Daniel, Michael Parsons and Sydney Walker, members of my original committee, who graciously responded when I needed their counsel. I am appreciative of the advice of Margaret Wyszomirski, who agreed to join my committee, and guided this study on issues related to policy study. And, my sincere thanks to Sydney Walker who unselfishly assumed the advisement of this study, whose time and attention to all aspects of this project were helpful, but whose intellectual interest and encouragement were invaluable.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………… iv Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………... v Vita……………………………………………………………………………….. vi List of Tables……………………………………………………………………… x List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………… xi
Chapters:
- Introduction to the Problem ……………...……………..……….. 1 Statement of the Problem…………….……………………..……Research Questions………………….…………..………………. (^45) Rationale of the Study……………….………….……………….. 6 Theoretical Framework: An Overview………….……………….. 9 Significance of the Study ………….……………..…………..….. 10 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study……………….……..Definition of Terms……………………………….……….......... 1314 Summary …………………………………………...……............ 16
- Review of Literature ……………………………………..……. 17 Relevant Theory and Research Literature: Policy Studies......… 18 Specific Theory and Research Literature: Education Policy….. 31 Art Education Curriculum Theory and Criticism………...…… 38 Discourse Theory and Art Education Policy Research……….. 47 Contributions to Art Education Policy Literature……………..Summary……………………………………………………… (^5356)
- Foucault’s Theory and Methodology ………………………… 58 On History and Universal Truth ………………………...…....On Genealogy ……………………………………………....... (^5860) On Power and Knowledge……………………………………. 61 On Political Theory…………………………….…………...... 63 The Discursive Statement…………………………………….. 65
viii
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4.1 Foucault’s Analytic Formations…………………………………………………..
5.1 Formation of Objects…………………………………………………………….
6.1 Formation of Enunciative Modes………………………………………………..
7.1 Formation of Concepts…………………………………………………………..
8.1 Formation of Strategies………………………………………………………….
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAE Alliance for Arts Education AATE American Alliance for Theatre in Education ACA American Council for the Arts ACAE American Council for Arts in Education AEAP:AEP Arts, Education and Americans PanelArts Education Partnership AHP Arts and Humanities Program (U. S. Office of Education) AIE Arts in Education Program (John D. Rockefeller 3rd^ Fund) ATA American Theatre Association CCSSOCEMREL Council of Chief State School OfficersCentral Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory CNAEA Consortium of National Arts Education Association DAMT Assembly of National Arts Education Organizations GCEA Getty Center for Education in the Arts (J. Paul Getty Trust) HEWJFK Department of Health, Education and WelfareJohn F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts MENC Music Educators National Conference NALAA National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies NAEA National Arts Education Association NAEAPNAEP National Arts Education Advisory PanelNational Assessment of Educational Progress NASAA National Assembly of State Arts Agencies NASAD National Association of Schools of Art and Design NASD National Association of Schools of Dance NASMNAST National Association of Schools of MusicNational Association of Schools of Theatre NASSP National Association for Secondary School Principles NCEA National Coalition for Education in the Arts (MENC, ACA) NCEST National Council on Education Standards and Testing NCSLNDA National Council of State LegislaturesNational Dance Association NEA National Endowment for the Arts NEA-AIE National Endowment Arts in Education Programs NEH National Endowment for the Humanities NSBASWRL National School Boards AssociationSouthwest Regional Educational Laboratory USDE United States Department of Education USOE United States Office of Education
2
Center for Education in the Arts formalized Discipline-Based Arts Education. Both of these streams increasingly broadened their scope to address various social equity and accountability issues centered on multiculturalism, technological development and student assessment. And similarly, both initiatives sought more ways of linking the student with his “real” world experiences through varied interdisciplinary or holistic approaches to learning and by the inclusion of community-based learning through “partnerships.” Paralleling these movements (occupying a prominent position on the national agenda and funded primarily through the National Endowment for the Arts) were programs espousing experiential modes of learning. Centered on the artist-in-schools concept and often relying on the state arts council structure for implementation, these programs exerted a substantial impact on arts education practice and policy. As early, as 1969, Joseph Schwab (1969) described the range of ideas prevalent in curricular inquiry: “One curriculum effort is grounded in concern for the individual, another in concern for groups, others in concern for cultures, communities, societies, minds, or the extant bodies of knowledge.” (Schwab, 1969, p. 6) These diverse, sometimes polarized, world views alternately have emphasized curriculum content, instructional methods and evaluation and have favored various program structures. However, curriculum orientations affect more than student learning. While it is obvious that curriculum dictates what is (and is not) accepted content and instructional practice, it is not always as clear if curriculum orientations also influence and are integral to policy environments beyond the school. The extent that these curriculum debates (often politically controversial and conceptually confused) have influenced the on-going formation of ideas, ideas that eventually informed policy agendas impacting arts
3
education is unclear. Likewise, the influence of forces within the policy environment on idea formation, agenda setting, policy formulation and, ultimately, on classroom implementation is far from transparent. The continued lack of understanding of these interactions and their impact on the early stages of policy formulation can be attributed in large part to insufficient research in art education policy research. Without benefit of substantial or reliable policy research, the field has remained overly dependent on criticism by individual arts education scholars, practitioners, artists, advocates and policymakers. As a result, the critique of the multiple policy forces that impact the future of arts education in the nation’s schools often has been ideologically biased and relied on unclear philosophical distinctions. Moreover, such critique seldom systematically has demonstrated an understanding of broad policy processes and structures that inevitably form and transform curriculum policy in its initial stages. Focused on ideological debate, little scholarship has addressed the viability of a given belief system within the policy environment, and/or the elusive political forces of discourse communities, their ideologies, and their political strategies. Several barriers to policy research in the field are evident. In part, as in other fields of policy research, research in arts education often is focused on policy implementation and program evaluation; identified research issues, established theory and proven methodology continue to support work in these areas. But, on the other hand, the art education field has produced little research that clearly links educational ideology to policy concerns in general; research focused on the early stages of ideological formation and policy formulation is hindered by an uncertainty concerning the nature and linkage between the two processes. More importantly, while some policy issues are
5
Research Questions Despite some differences, characteristics of discourse analysis examined in this study are often parallel, compatible or complementary to methods used in policy studies. Based on an overview of the policy field in general, the argument presented here is that discourse analysis, a qualitative research methodology, offers another distinct research method to policy researchers. Discourse theory is primarily differentiated from traditional policy science, an area of policy studies, because of its divergence from quantitative research. However, the evolving field of general policy studies corresponds and exhibits affinities to Foucault’s theory (and his procedural recommendations) because of 1) their qualitative orientation, 2) their focus on integrating data within its context to discover new knowledge, and 3) their concentration on policy function rather than policy content. Although they may diverge on data collection and analysis procedures, policy study and discourse analysis offer insight into larger ideological and political realities impacting the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policy. In order to confirm the value of discourse theory and Foucault’s methodological approach to policy research, the primary question for this study is: What is the relevance of Foucault’s discourse theory for understanding the relationship of idea formation in arts education discourse to national arts education policy formulation? Additional questions that clarify the major research question are:
- Does the methodology (and the model) offer a plausible means of explaining relationship of idea formation to curriculum policy discourse and formulation?
- Does the methodology (and the model) provide understanding of idea formation, and its relationship to policy formulation when applied to various contexts and cases?
6
- Does the methodology (and the model) provide for a focused examination andcorroboration of discourse processes related to curriculum policy formulation?
- Does the methodology (and the model) account for researcher bias?
- Are the method and the model consistent with each other and with Foucault’s theory and mode of inquiry? Rationale for the Study Believing that unexamined ideas, even those that appear harmless, may have detrimental consequences, this study devises a methodology that attempts to untangle the role of philosophical ideas from the political influences in practical decision making. Research “... shapes people’s perceptions, and provides them with concepts to use in thinking about the work they do.” (Nisbet, 1999, p. 69) Nisbet describes the fundamental and instrumental purposes served by policy research in general education: Defined narrowly, policy-oriented research is research which has direct application to current issues in educational policy or practice. A wider definition....is that policy oriented research consists of careful, systematicattempts to understand the educational process and, through understanding, to improve its efficiency. (Nisbet, 1999, p. 65) First, this study is primarily focused on validating a methodology, a fundamental research goal; through Foucault’s focus on idea formation, it attempts to provide a careful and systematic means to detect and analyze the role of perception in policy decision making and the formation of policy concepts. As Nisbet points out, fundamental research may provide the “concepts for the analyses of problems and may even help to identify and define problems.” (Nisbet, 1999, p.65) By redefining the “reality” of the policy environment through a viable policy research methodology, this study provides insight into policy and curricular problems and solutions resulting from limited or inaccurate
8
“character of theory and research in art education,” comments that “...errors in thought, misperceptions, unquestioned values, and unexplained events can cause a good deal of human misfortune....” (Chapman, 1982, p.102) Likewise, David Pankratz (1998) questions the value systems driving the current interests in arts education research; he reflects on the connection of these values and interests to issues of practice, policy development and advocacy. (Pankratz, 1998, p.2) While there are many areas in the field where such conceptual inconsistencies occur, Liora Bresler (1998) recognizes several distinct factions effecting arts education policy development and suggests a dialogue between researchers, policymakers and practitioners to resolve “the multiple perspectives of these varied constituencies and their distinct underlying goals, commitments, and discursive styles.” (Bresler, 1998, p.1) As a response to these and similar concerns, this study seeks 1) to provide a theoretical and methodological framework for understanding contradictory ideologies embedded in art education curriculum, 2) to trace the transformation and continuity of these ideas in the policy making process, 3) to determine the political factions and strategies through which these ideologies inform arts education policy agendas, and 4) to understand the implications these ideologies have for interfacing policy with arts education practice. While a fundamental task for this study is to assess a discourse methodology, the instrumental rationale is to clarify simultaneously major curricular orientations as they relate to arts education policy agendas and to establish the manner of the ideological “congruence, interaction and disjunction” within arts education communities. (Smith, 1981, p.77)
9
Theoretical Framework: An Overview In general, Diane MacDonnell (1986) characterizes discourse theory as constructivist, relationalist, and heterogeneous in nature. (Cited in Jacob Torfing, 1999, p. 3) Robert de Beaugrande (1994) describes discourse (founded in language) “as both structure and event, both knowledge and action, both system and process, both potential and actual.” (de Beaugrande, 1994, p.207) Jacob Torfing (1999), in contrast, emphasizes that “discourse is co-extensive with the social and cannot be reduced to either its semantic or its pragmatic aspects. All actions have meaning, and to produce and disseminate meaning is to act.” (Torfing, 1999, p.94) Foucault’s theory of discourse emerged within a context of on-going scholarship related to discourse, policy and educational ideologies. Often referred to as “an unbounded group of writings,” ideas about discourse theory can be drawn from the fields of linguistics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, history, literary criticism and political science. Rooted in the social unrest in many parts of the world during the mid- to-late 1960's, discourse theories offered a new way of conceptualizing and evaluating historical traditions and institutional structures, political processes and their influence on beliefs and values, the formation of individual and cultural identity and the artifacts and symbols that represented them. Following the translation and dissemination of the work of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, researchers in England and America during the 1970s and 1980s applied selected French discourse theory to educational problems. Paralleling these emerging discourse theories, William Schubert (1986) notes the short history of the policy field in education. He credits Daniel Lerner and Harold Lasswell (1951) along with Stanley E. Balinger (1964) with aligning and even replacing
