Examining the Actor Coalitions and Discourse Coalitions of the Opt-Out Movement in New York: A Discourse Network Analysis

Background/Context Since 2013, opting out of state standardized tests has become a movement—the grassroots, organized efforts to refuse to take high-stakes state standardized tests. In particular, opt-out rates in the state of New York have been consistently fluctuating around 20%. Purpose/Objective This study aims to examine the actor coalitions and discourse coalitions that have propelled the opt-out movement in the state of New York—the movement's epicenter with the highest opt-out rate in the United States. Conceptual Framework This study is conceptually grounded in the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), a prominent conceptual lens to investigate the formation of coalitions and their impact on policymaking. The ACF posits that advocacy coalitions are forged by policy actors who have similar policy preferences. By contrast, differences in policy preferences are manifested in the discourse that serves to defend or propose coherent arguments as justifications for policy preferences held by the opposition coalitions. Research Design This study compiled the Opt-out Discourse Data Set by using data from 323 press articles and 52 archival documents from 2015 to 2018. Each news article or archival document was coded with three variables: movement actors, statements articulated by the actors, and the actors’ sentiment toward the statements. An actor-statement bipartite network, an actor coalition network, and a discourse coalition network were created, respectively. Next, Freeman degree centrality was calculated to identify major actors and their statements. The network metrics of density and connectedness of the two competing coalitions were calculated to compare the coalitions’ network structure. Findings In the actor coalition network, the movement advocacy coalition is clearly more densely connected than the movement opposition coalition in terms of the number of actors, coalition density, and coalition connectedness. The discourse coalition network shows similar patterns: the movement advocacy coalition is densely connected, as evidenced by the numbers of nodes in each coalition and the network metrics of coalition density and connectedness. Conclusions/Recommendations This study concludes with a discussion on how the future of the opt-out movement depends on (1) how the movement advocacy coalition continues to amass power and influence in education policymaking, and (2) how the New York State Education Department exercises its power over implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Moreover, this article demonstrates the application of discourse network analysis to examine qualitative data in education research. The discourse network approach is particularly instrumental in explaining a policy output by identifying coalitions and their interactions within and across the coalitions.

Analysts, advocates and applicators: three discourse coalitions of UK evidence and policy

Background: Continued growth of the evidence and policy field has prompted calls to consolidate findings in pursuit of a more holistic understanding of theory and practice.Aims and objectives: The aim of this paper is to develop and explore an analytical typology that offers a way to consider the heterogeneity of different actors in UK evidence and policy.Methods: We draw upon a discourse coalitions approach to analyse a series of semi-structured interviews with a cross-section of professionals in the evidence and policy field.Findings: We describe an analytical typology that is composed of three discourse coalitions, each with their own framings of the problems of evidence and policy relations, the practices needed to address these, the organisation of people, and their priorities for future development. These are: the analytical coalition, which typically theorises evidence and policy relations in a way that matches empirical observations; the advocacy coalition, which typically normatively refines and prescribes particular evidence and policy relations; and the application coalition, which typically evaluates contextual conditions and enacts techniques to bring evidence into policy and practice.Discussion and conclusions: We discuss the potential of this analytical lens to inform recognised tensions in evidence and policy relations, and consider how greater awareness of the positioning of individuals within these coalitions may help to foster improved collaboration and consolidation in the field. Ultimately, we note that distinct priorities in the three coalitions signify different visions for progress within the field that need to be negotiated.<br />Key messages<ul><li>Consolidation of the evidence and policy field requires a recognition of its heterogeneity.</li><br /><li>We propose three discourse coalitions – analytical, advocacy and application – to describe the field.</li><br /><li>Each discourse coalition reflects different problem perceptions, people, practices, and priorities.</li><br /><li>Recognition of personal positioning in the discourse coalitions could help the field’s development.</li></ul>

Trends in Tensions between Modelled Direction and Context in Education

The article continues the analysis of the problem of tensions between the modelled direction and the context in education in Lithuania in the stage of its development in the second decade of the 21st century. The selected aspect – the opportunity for the transformational purpose of education declared in documents on education while social groups assess education unfavourably. The research question – why are there tensions between the declared transformational purpose of education and the context of development of education. The research is based on the qualitative methodology of documentary analysis: purposefully selected document sources of discourse on educational matters are analysed. Data analysis and interpretation and discussion of approaches by comparing them with theoretical perceptions and insights of researchers lead to conclude the following: All approach coalitions analysed in the discourse recognise transformational impact of education as a system on an individual and society, but treat the content of the impact completely differently. The representatives of business and politics coalitions rely in the discourse on the perceptions of education as socialisation and development of society as economic growth, therefore they would consider education good, if individuals were formed in accordance with the requirements of the business coalition, with no opportunities to choose the learning area, provision of knowledge of exact sciences, digital literacy and entrepreneurship required for economic growth rates, training the capacity to sell skills, instilling values and behavioural models for taking care of oneself, so that young people would as soon as possible be able to become the quality “human capital” creating added value, while the education system and policy would serve business and industrial development. This discourse coalition uses pervading economic criteria in assessing the intellectual resources and processes of education, and educational outcomes, and would use these criteria for modelling further direction of teaching individuals and developing education. Individual participants of discourse who by their occupation belong to the business coalition are guided by the perception of the development of society as long-term sustainable progress, i.e. they assess not only economic growth, but also the distribution of goods resulting from sustainable progress and the stability of progress. Although individual approaches do not represent a strong position in assessing education, their concepts serve the basis for raising the problem of equality of income and opportunities in society, which has a significant impact on educational outcomes: income inequality causes inequality of opportunities due to which some part of the youth is socially marginalised or is forced to emigrate. The discourse coalition of philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists relies on the perception of education as empowerment of an individual and as personal liberation, development of society as increasing choice opportunities and the process of revealing the capacity to form the world. Approaches of this coalition focus on the humanist relationship with the growing individual as the perspective of the nation, on a human being nurtured on the humanist level as a civic, thinking, creative and democratic individual, on the cognition of the world as an intrinsic value and as the way to search for intelligence, on knowledge which serves values, and also on many other values which essentially represent the provisions of educational policies adhered to in Lithuania in the second decade of the 21st century. Tensions between the provisions modelled in education and the understanding of the role of education in society, assessment of the condition of education, and further direction in which education should develop during the period researched by groups implementing education policy and different groups of society occur due to conflicting theoretical concepts, on which individual groups of society rely.

Climate Change Policy in Chinese Online Media Discourse: The Case of the Debate on the Copenhagen Climate Summit 2009

This paper discusses the debate in Chinese online media on both climate change policy and the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15). Based on the results of a discourse analysis of Chinese language weblogs, the paper argues that at the time of COP15 there was a dominant single discourse coalition, while also identifying alternative discourse formations. The main reasons for this discursive structure seem to be the ways in which actors are participating in the political process, the sensitivity of the topic of climate change in the Chinese discussion, and the influence of foreign debates.

Struggles at the Summits: Discourse Coalitions, Field Boundaries, and the Shifting Role of Business in Sustainable Development

This research explores the field dynamics that facilitated the emergence of a dominant understanding of business’ role in sustainable development (SD). Based on a study of the U.N. Earth Summits, we examine how actors meet every decade to battle for definitional control of what SD means for business, and what business means for SD. Through a discourse analysis of texts from business, policy, and civil society actors during each Summit, we illustrate how an ensuing discursive struggle shifts the role of business in SD from being largely undefined in 1992, to being considered an SD partner in 2002, and finally to becoming a driver of SD by 2012. We contend that these shifts occurred largely due to two field dynamics: (a) rearranging of field boundaries and (2) forming of a discourse coalition. Accordingly, our study highlights how disparate actors coalesce around a shared-meaning system and collectively shape the role of business role in SD. However, we argue that despite the allure of a unified meaning-making process between once antagonistic actors, business–SD relations are underpinned by politicized interaction where certain actors come to dominate, and, in doing so, marginalize others.