K.U.

LEUVEN
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences
Department of Educational Sciences
Centre for Educational Policy and Innovation

Research Proposal
Mapping the education policy context.
An analysis of the education magazine Klasse.

Anneleen Verckens

Promotors: Prof. Dr. G. Kelchtermans

Prof. Dr. M. Simons

June 2007
 Table of content

1. Introduction: research interest ............................................................................................... 3

2. Context and problem statement.............................................................................................. 5

2.1. A short history of Klasse................................................................................................. 5
2.1.1. What is Klasse? ...................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2. Klasses mission and objectives................................................................................ 5
2.1.3. The history of Klasse ................................................................................................ 6
2.1.4. Some research results: They all read Klasse with pleasure.................................... 8
2.1.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 9
2.2. The (international) education policy context: a changed relationship between government
and the education field.................................................................................................................. 10
2.3. Problem statement ........................................................................................................... 15

3. Theoretical framework and research questions .................................................................. 17

3.1. (Policy)Text as discourse................................................................................................. 17
3.1.1. Studying education policy....................................................................................... 17
3.1.2. (Policy)Text as discourse........................................................................................ 18
3.1.3. Critical Discourse Analysis..................................................................................... 20
3.2. A governmentality perspective on 'Klasse' and education policy.................................... 24
3.2.1. Power and government ........................................................................................... 25
3.2.2. Governmentality ..................................................................................................... 27
3.2.3. An analytics of government or study of governmentality .................................... 29
3.3. The order of discourse in 'Klasse' and 'Klasse' as a specific governmental instrument:
Research questions........................................................................................................................ 31

4. Research design and methodology........................................................................................ 35

4.1. Research phase 1: A critical discourse analysis of Klasse............................................ 36
4.2. Research phase 2: investigating the conditions of possibility of Klasse....................... 37
4.2.1. Policy documents analysis ...................................................................................... 37
4.2.2. Interviews with key informants .............................................................................. 40
4.2.3. Focus groups ........................................................................................................... 40
4.2.4. Interpreting the order of discourse in Klasse........................................................ 42
4.2.5. Conclusion: How can the magazine Klasse do what it does?............................ 43
4.3. Research phase 3: Mapping the current regime of government in education and
theoretical contribution................................................................................................................. 43

5. Research plan.......................................................................................................................... 44

6. References ................................................................................................................... 46

2
 Research Proposal
Mapping the education policy context. An analysis of the
education magazine Klasse.

Practising criticism is a matter of making facile

gestures difficult. (Foucault, 1988, p.154).

1. Introduction: research interest

The purpose of this doctoral project is to analyse the magazine Klasse of the Flemish Ministry of
Education. Klasse could be regarded as a successful phenomenon in Flemish society and education.
It is a magazine of the Ministry, with an independent editorial board, distributed to both public and
private schools1 a rather popular magazine considering the number of prints. What does the
magazine Klasse - used today for communication by the Flemish government - tell us about the
changed relation between government and the education field?. This question reflects the central
research interest of this doctoral project, that is, an understanding of the relation between the Flemish
government and the education field based on an analysis of Klasse. The project is part of the research
project (OT) Education and the Public at the Centre for Educational Policy and Innovation and the
Centre for Philosophy of Education2.

All the publications of Klasse the magazines for teachers, for parents, Yeti for teenagers, and
Maks! for secondary education, SchoolDirect and LerarenDirect (e-newsletters for principals and
teachers) represent highly valued media. The popularity of Klasse not only tells us something
about the current need of the education field for the magazines, it also offers an entry to reflect upon
the role of the government. Klasse is central to the communication policy of the Ministry of
Education; significant financing and personnel are invested in what is referred to as information for
the education field. All this points, according to me, to a particular relation between government and

1
In the Flemish education system, the distinction between public and private schools can be misleading.
Originally, schools have been set up by the Ministry of Education, municipalities or provinces (all official or public
education), or by not-gouvernmental organizations like catholic congregations, groups of parents, etc. (private education).
This four sorts of school boards are united into education networks or educational umbrella organizations: the education
network of State schools, the education network of catholic schools, the education network of schools of municipalities and
provinces and the education network of small school boards (experimental schools like Steiner, Freinet, Montessori, etc.).
But all schools, whether they are public or private of origin, are funded or subsidized by the Ministry of Education if they
are attaining the minimal performance standards. (for more information: The information database on education systems in
Europe (Eurydice) http://194.78.211.243/Eurybase/Application/frameset.asp?country=BN&language=EN)
2
http://ppw.kuleuven.be/edupub/english/home.htm

3
the education field. In other words, it is my contention that the magazine Klasse both its emergence
and the style/content - tells us something about how government relates to the education field, and
about how government steers education practice. As mentioned earlier, this publications seem to adapt
at the same time to the needs and wants of teachers, principals, parents and pupils. The other media in
Flanders (journals, magazines, etc.) regularly mimic messages or studies that first appeared in
Klasse, in the e-newsletters or at the website. Thus, the editors of these publications also recognize
the need of Flemish citizens for information about education and education policy.

The questions raised in this doctoral project do not appear out of the blue; they are inspired by the
(later) work of Michel Foucault on government and the elaboration, fine-tuning and application in so-
called studies of governmentality. The questions express a specific research attitude, aiming at
questioning what is currently evident for us today, by focussing on how we behave and how we are
asked to behave. Klasse seems such an obvious thing for us now. However, we assume it has not
always been this manifest for government or education practice. In this doctoral project, I would like
to analyse Klasse as well as to focus on the present education policy context. I do not aim, however,
at discussing the legitimacy of education policy or Klasse (may they steer education?, is it
justified?), neither do I want to evaluate the effectiveness of Klasse or of education policy as such
(can they steer education?, is it effective?). Kelchtermans (2004, p.10) summarizes the research
questions of this kind of policy analysis as follows: Who can steer education, to which extent, and in
which direction?3. Instead, the main purpose of this study of education policy is to elucidate our
present, to see what is going on today (Foucault, 1988), and to gain an understanding of why
Klasse is experienced as important or even necessary by policy makers, as well as the education
field. Therefore, maybe this can open the space in which to think about how it is possible to do things
in a different fashion. (Dean, 1999, p.36).
Moreover, in my research I will concentrate on the relation between government and the education
field. Focusing on Klasse as a governmental instrument, I will investigate how the connection of
government and the education field is thought, has evolved and is experienced. This objective is also
inspired by the international literature on (education) policy, as we will elaborate in section two of this
paper. After this context and problem statement, we will clarify our theoretical framework and
concretely define research questions in section three. Sections four and five contain respectively our
research design and research plan.

3
Wie mag, in welke mate, in welke richting het onderwijs sturen?

4
 2. Context and problem statement

2.1. A short history of Klasse

2.1.1. What is Klasse?

Klasse is the name of the communication project of the Ministry of Education of the Flemish
Government. It is the continuation of the former Information Magazine of the Ministry of Education.
In January 1990, the first issue of Klasse (for teachers and principals) was distributed to all primary
and secondary schools. Meanwhile Klasse has evolved a lot; each group in the field of education
(teachers, parents and pupils) has its own magazine, and there are several e-newsletters and websites.
Most people know Klasse just from one initiative. But the brand Klasse has different layers now: four
magazines (with their specific websites); an active component namely the Teacher Card (with a website)
and Pupil Card (with a website); some twenty specific electronical newsletters with extra supplements for
the teachers, containing tips for using them in education practice (on paper or virtually). More than ten
thousand people follow the non-stop updated news about education, in words and images, via the online-
journal Klasse.vandaag (Klasse Today). Klasse communicates with its target groups in three worlds:
teachers/principals, pupils and parents and society. This communication happens in each world on
three tracks: online, offline and via actions. Because of that, very focused, differentiated and complementary
communication becomes possible. With online-communication Klasse reaches every month about 600 000
unique readers . The printed magazines are sent every month to 1,2 million persons.4

Since the restructuring of the Ministry of Education in April 2006, Klasse is part of a special division
of the Ministry of Education, namely the Agency for Communication on Education (managed by J.
De Ro). The agency summarizes its mission as follows:
The Agency for Communication on Education guarantees the external communication of the Ministry of
Education with the different target groups (education professionals and the wider public). The Agency
communicates via different channels (publications, websites, magazines, media campaigns, events, e-zines,
an information telephone number), aiming at informing the different target groups about education policy
so that they feel involved and can participate.5

2.1.2. Klasses mission and objectives

According to the editorial board, Klasse is aiming at increasing the involvement of the different
target groups with education by giving them particular information. The editors not only want to
inform education participants, but also want to encourage participation and action (e.g. Klasse's

4
http://www.klasse.be/over.php
5
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/wegwijs/com/

5
participation pyramid: listening, participating, thinking along)6. Their motto has always been: We
make school together. Klasse is prepared by an autonomous editorial staff. Readers are regularly
reminded about this fact in the magazines, e.g. the Who makes Klasse?-part in Klasse nr.71: Yes, it
is possible at a Ministry: this magazine is made by an autonomous editorial board. This can be the
case because our government believes in a mature communication with the different target groups in
education.7.

On their main website, they are introducing their mission clearly:

The autonomous editorial board succeeds in informing the different target groups, increasing their
involvement and stimulating discussion about and in education. Finally, all this aims at more and better
participation, higher involvement, active citizenship and a better prevention of problematic behaviour. Since
the publications are read by almost 100% of the target groups, they are the excellent media to reach the
specific target groups in a very directed way. Moreover, Klasse is a multimedia project and works together
on a structural basis with almost all tv-broadcasts and printed media that belong to the lifeworld of the
target groups.8

2.1.3. The history of Klasse

Before Klasse existed, the Information Magazine of the Ministry of Education was spread during
25 years.9 The chief editor of Klasse tells about this magazine: I have never seen the magazine that
existed before and I didnt think that I missed something important. It was stapled, and at school
nobody was interested enough to remove the staple. We would do things better. We wanted to make a
magazine where the staple jumped out by itself, out of pure pleasure.10
Initially (beginning in January 1990) each primary and secondary school received two copies of
Klasse (for teachers and principals). If schools wanted more copies, or if teachers wished to get a
personal copy at home, they could pay a fee and subscribe individually (since March 1992). In these
early years, the editorial staff consisted of five employees and the magazine was printed on about 40
pages. One year after initial publication, 3000 schools or teachers had already subscribed to receive
extra copies.
Since January 1994, every teacher and principal receives a personal copy of Klasse distributed to
his or her home. Because of the overall reduction of governmental expenses at that time, this initiative
did not pass unnoticed. The Minister of Education had to submit a detailed explanation for this
expensive communication policy in the Flemish parliament (e.g. Bulletin van Vraag & Antwoord

6
Klasse nr.67, September 1996, p.33.
7
In particular this means that the editors are payed by the Ministry of Education (contractuals or detached teachers)
and that government pays for the publication and distribution of the magazines. Nevertheless, the editorial staff is totally
independent of government for decisions about content and lay-out. They can also use the incomes out of publicity and
subscriptions for operation costs autonomously. (Klasse nr.71, January 1997)
8
http://www.klasse.be/over.php
9
Klasse nr.1, January 1990, p.4
10
L. Bormans in Klasse nr.100, December 1999, p.3

6
nr.18, 26/07/1993, p.930-932)11. The policy decision was justified too in Klasse: Moreover, this
initiative has n influence on the overall education budget since we searched for reduction of expenses
in other parts of the education administration. Furthermore, this is about what we find really
important: instant communication with those people in Flanders who realize education every day.12
September 1996, the first Klasse for parents was distributed on eight pages. This new magazine
was released because more and more parents started to buy and read the original Klasse (for
teachers). On the other hand, with the upcoming participation climate, teachers also seemed to
appreciate a special issue of Klasse aiming at enhancing the involvement of parents at school. This is
what the editorial staff said about this issue in Klasse: More than 65% of Flemish teachers praised
the idea to make a special newsletter for parents beside Klasse. () If we want to take seriously the
13
participation of parents, than we have to inform them seriously too. All of them. Schools could
subscribe to this free newsletter and distribute it to the parents themselves. The next expansion was the
Youth Klasse for pupils of secondary education (eight pages), first spread in January 1997. The
pupils themselves asked for their own version of Klasse, informing them about education adjusted to
their interests. Last year, the question to the Minister of Education was a question for more
information. We know such a little about education, so how can we be more interested in it? Why
dont we get a magazine like Klasse?14
With these three editions of Klasse (teachers/principals, parents and pupils), each month 900.000
copies were spread and the editorial board consisted of nine staff members.

November 1996, virtual communication was realized with the website Klasse on the internet. One
year later, all versions of Klasse counted together more than one million of monthly readers. The
editorial board started an advice group, consisting of readers from the different target groups. The
layout and the amount of pages of the magazines changed regularly, based on the results of frequent
reader surveys. The education magazine inspired several other government departments in their
communication policy (e.g. the welfare or justice department) and even foreign education policy
departments (e.g. the magazines Teachers and Parents in the UK)15. The editorial board received
several awards from various social profit organisations16. During the last years, and as explained
earlier, some substantial changes were the rebirth of Klasse for Youth as Maks! (September 2000),
while in September 2001 the little brother Yeti, for the teenagers of the last years of primary

11
http://jsp.vlaamsparlement.be/docs/bva/1992-1993/va-18-.pdf
12
Klasse nr. 41, January 1994, p.32.
13
Klasse nr. 67, September 1996, p.40.
14
Klasse nr. 69, November 1996, p.32.
15
Klasse nr.100, December 1999, p.8
16
E.g. the What-did-you-say?-award for clear language use (Wablieft-prijs) (Klasse nr.81), the plush hedgehog of
the Flemish Pupils Association (VSK) for the promotion of pupils rights (Klasse nr.103), the Flemish award for a positive
image of homosexual people (Klasse nr.112), the award of the Centre for Suicide Prevention (Centrum voor de Preventie van
Zelfmoord) (Klasse nr.145) and awards of Humo and The night of the internet for the design of the Maks!-website (Klasse
nr.160).

7
school, appeared for the first time. February 2001 a Teacher Card was distributed to all teachers and
principals, by which they can get significant reductions at cultural events in Belgium and abroad.
Inspired by the success of this initiative, in September 2004 a Pupil Card was sent to almost all
schools for the same purpose. Because of the research work, and the permanent updates of these
reduction-events for teachers and pupils, the editorial staff now consists of almost thirty members. At
date, the magazines have 1,2 million readers and the websites count thousands of visitors daily.
While started as a small experiment fifteen years ago, Klasse seems to have become a substantial
part of the Flemish education system and even a source of inspiration for other countries.

2.1.4. Some research results: They all read Klasse with pleasure

In 2000, Devos, Verhoeven, Kuhk and Rots (2002) studied the governmental communication of
education policy to the education field. Klasse, as part of the communication of the Ministry of
Education, received some attention in this research. Summarizing, we can say that Klasse (for
teachers) and Klasse for Parents are very popular media concerning education policy. The different
magazines reach their target group almost completely, and even the other education participants know
the publications very well. The concrete results are indicated in table 1 and 2.

Principals Teachers Parents

Do you know Klasse for Teachers? 96% 100% 55%
Do you know Klasse for Parents? 95% 99% 96%
Table 1: Respondents from primary education17

Principals Teachers Administrative Parents Pupils

staff
Do you know Klasse for Teachers? 100% 100% 100% 56% 74%
Do you know Klasse for Parents? 94% 95% 78% 84% 79%
Do you know Klasse for Youth18? 95% 98% 82% 95% 98%
Table 2: Respondents from secondary education

The researchers asked the participants also how important they valued different media concerning
information about education policy. They concluded that Klasse for Teachers is a very important
source of information about education policy for teachers (80%) and parents (71%), but less important
for principals (48%) and administration staff (47%). Klasse for Parents is even the most important
source of information for parents, but also many teachers use the magazine to be informed about
education. Pupils, administrative staff, and principals do not value the parents magazine as much for
obtaining information about education policy.

17
Yeti (for teenagers) didnt yet exist at the moment of the study.
18
Now called Maks!

8
 Further interesting research conclusions relate to the evaluation of the content and layout of the
Klasses by the respondents. 'Klasse' for teachers and principals is appreciated most for the clear use
of language, the up-to-date and useful information and the overall layout. According to the
respondents, the magazine does not contain too much information nor does it threaten pedagogical
freedom19 of the particular schools. Klasse for Parents is valued a lot for its attractive layout and for
giving a positive and realistic image of education practice. Klasse for Youth was not appreciated that
much by all respondent categories at the moment of the data collection. A short time later, however,
the magazine was reborn as Maks!, so the results are possibly out of date.
Hence, the research of Devos et al. (2002) clearly indicates that the magazines of Klasse reach
their target groups, as well as other participants of education practice. For teachers and parents 'their'
Klasse is the most important source of information on education (policy). Furthermore, the
magazines are appealing in both content and layout.

2.1.5. Conclusion

We can resume our story about Klasse as the successful communication project of the Ministry of
Education of the Flemish Government, and this in many aspects. With Klasse, the editors inform
education practice about the proposals and initiatives of the Ministry. But Klasse offers much space
for the questions, problems, experiences and good practices of teachers, parents and pupils too. And
a considerable part of the magazine is dedicated to announce activities, events, literature and other
interesting things for the people in education practice. So, we refer one last time to the mission of
Klasse in the words of the chief editor: We wanted to shed light on education practice from inside.
Informing, supporting and stimulating people. Not out of power, selfish interests or knowing how to
do things better. But rather out of reality itself, driven by the insight that more, better and wider
information can lead to more insight, involvement, engagement and active participation. 20

Because Klasse has become an important publication of the Flemish government, it is reasonable to
assume that this publication can tell us something about the relation between government and the
education field. Firstly, the coming to existence of Klasse in the 1990s, explicitly striving for better
communication between government and its citizens, could be regarded as a symptom of a changed
relation. With regard to this, the following statement of a former Minister of Education, Luc Van Den

19
In the Belgian legislation, freedom of education implies a double freedom. On the one hand, we have the so called
pedagogical freedom to organize education and for this purpose establish institutions (schools). This means that everyone
can found a school, reflecting his or her own ideas about good education. The education government should not intervene in
the pedagogical mission or the use of pedagogical methods at schools, but can only install some minimal attainment targets
and safety rules. The other freedom of education means the freedom of school choice for pupils and their parents. (For more
information: The information database on education systems in Europe (Eurydice)
http://194.78.211.243/Eurybase/Application/frameset.asp?country=BN&language=EN)
20
L. Bormans, Klasse nr. 100, December 1999, p.3.

9
Bossche is illuminating: The new policy philosophy is based on a totally different relation between
government and the education field. Government marks the borders and gives the resources in a
global finance system. The education field gets the greatest possible freedom nd responsibility to
realize its objectives. This is called deregulation.21 Secondly, the magazine articulates both
throughout the contents that are published and the style that is used, a role of government, of the
education field, as well as a view on their relation.
In the next sections of this research proposal I will clarify this preliminary problem statement in a
more detailed way. In section 2.2. I will discuss the changed relation between government and the
education field, while in section 2.3. I will work out the concrete problem statement at length. In
section 3. I will elaborate our theoretical perspective on education and education policy, followed by
our research questions.

2.2. The (international) education policy context: a changed

relationship between government and the education field

The changed relation between government and the education field has already been studied in an
extensive way in the international (education) policy literature. This relation is labelled as a
withdrawing government (de Kam & de Haan, 1991), a post-welfare state (Klaassen, 1996; Larner,
2000), a neoliberal state (Dale, 1997; Larner & Walters, 2004; Olssen, ONeill & Codd, 2004;
Robertson & Dale, 2002; Wielemans, 1996-1997), advanced liberalism (Dean, 1999; Haahr, 2004;
Rose & Miller, 1992; Rose, 1996), and includes the particular processes of decentralization (Dale,
1997; Verhoeven & Elchardus, 2000) and deregulation (Fuhrman & Elmore, 1995; Verhoeven &
Elchardus, 2000). Some of these attempts to describe the changed policy context will be discussed in
more detail, in order to have a kind of background to formulate this projects concern to analyse the
magazine Klasse.

To describe the changed relation between government and the education field, I will start from the
three perspectives on state and society (or ideologies) distinguished by Olssen et al. (2004). They label
these policy perspectives as the classic liberal state, the welfare liberal state and the neoliberal
state (Olssen et al., 2004, p.181). Each perspective includes a particular definition of the (role of the)
state, society, individuals and education.
The ideology of the classic liberal state assumes an absolute freedom of the individual person and
defends untouchable individual basic rights (life, freedom and ownership). The state has to assure that
each person can exercise these rights (e.g. by laws and speaking justice, the installation of a police
force, by public works, etc.), but should not intervene in private life in other ways. Education aims at

21
Klasse nr.27, September 1992, p.11

10
developing individuals to be rational, critical and independent citizens, aiding people to a full
development of their capacities and competencies. Thus in this perspective, the purpose of education is
to promote personal autonomy of the individual.
In a welfare state, the states most important task is giving equal chances at welfare (health,
education, income, etc.) to all citizens. The purposes of this government were conceived as enframing
society within mechanisms of security by which the state would care for the welfare of the population
from the cradle to the grave. (Dean, 1999, p.150). In view of this objective, the state wants to
organize all kinds of welfare programmes, besides some form of free education to decrease the gap
between social classes and to effect social change. Solidarity, collaboration, citizenship and duty are
the most important values for society. Thus, education strives not only at personal development, but is
at the same time a basic human right and has to contribute to the development of the whole society.
A neoliberal state believes that applying the market principle to all domains of life will give the
best (economical) results. The main idea is that by promoting enterprise, choice and diversity,
(economical) progress will be achieved. The state should do everything to let the market principle
work and to improve entrepreneurial values (competition, choice, autonomy, etc.) in society. But for
the rest, each citizen should be self-responsible for his/her own welfare and well-being.
Neoliberalism has come to represent a positive conception of the states role in creating the
appropriate market by providing the conditions, laws and institutions necessary for its operation.
(Olssen et al., 2004). Individuals are conceived as self-responsible entrepreneurs, who choose and pay
for all their needs and wants. Education is a commodity that you can buy when you want to develop
yourself. Knowledge is regarded as a form of human capital needed to compete at the (labour)
market and produced in education. Thus, education has to adapt to the wants and needs of its clients,
since this is the only way to stay alive in the competition of the education market.

This changed relation between the state or government and the citizens is described and interpreted in
various ways. A selection of descriptions and interpretations is presented below, including examples
from the Flemish policy context. This overview offers tools to formulate in more detail the focus of
my research.
In Dales view (1997), government does not carry out all governance tasks itself anymore, but is
especially engaged in the coordination of the coordination or in meta-governance. This does not
mean that the state is no longer important; on the contrary, according to Dale the overall state control
on education has even increased. Yet the role of government has changed profoundly: True, the
nature of the work it does has changed, very broadly speaking, from carrying out most of the work of
the co-ordination of education itself to determining where the work will be done and by whom. (Dale,
1997, p.274). Government engages more now in deciding which actors can or have to carry out
specific governance tasks and in which framework, rather than exercising the particular governance
activities itself. This new relation between government and practice is often labelled especially in the

11
education field as decentralization, participation or enlarging autonomy, combined with new forms
of (output) accountability (Verhoeven & Elchardus, 2000).
In the Flemish education context, we can also mention the encouraging of sound policy making at
the local level (beleidsvoerend vermogen) (Vandenbroucke, 2004; Van Petegem, Devos, Mahieu, Kim
& Warmoes, 2005), since this policy aims at creating more space for initiatives and autonomy at the
school level. But at the same time, government wants to make sure schools have fulfilled their policy-
making duties in a qualitative way. Another initiative to promote autonomy and sound policy making
at the local level, is the formation of school clusters in Flemish primary, secondary and higher
education. In this way, schools can collaborate on a lot of local policy domains, like personnel policy,
the use of ICT-budgets or the provision of courses.

From a different theoretical perspective, Dean (1999) defines the current relation between government
and citizens as the government of government or reflexive government of advanced liberal
democracies. There are indications that it is now possible to consider the task of national
government to be to govern without governing society. () More fundamentally, it registers the
displacement we have just noted in which the task of national government is less to govern social and
economic processes external to itself than to secure the institutions and mechanisms of social and
economic government themselves. (Dean, 1999, p.172).
From a neoliberal perspective, people are assumed to be autonomous, responsible and self-
interested entrepreneurs. Thus, government should not regulate society, but should facilitate this
autonomous behaviour and make all choices possible. Though a neoliberal state only wants to conduct
a macro-economical policy to assure the existence of the market economy and promoting individual
autonomy concerning life choices, it nonetheless creates (quasi) markets in places where there were
none before, like in education. This manifests itself in education policy that stimulates competition
among schools, entrepreneurship in the field of education, customer orientation in schools, and the use
of contract to organize teaching. Hence, advanced liberal governance is not a laissez-faire policy, but
steers and influences society constantly and profoundly. On the one hand they contract, consult,
negotiate, create partnerships, even empower and activate forms of agency, liberty and the choices of
individuals, consumers, professionals, households, neighbourhoods and communities. On the other,
they set norms, standards, benchmarks, performance indicators, quality controls and best practice
standards, to monitor, measure and render calculable the performance of these various agencies.
(Dean, 1999, p.165).
In Deans view, government tries to play a more coordinating and preventive role, resulting in
more (entrepreneurial) freedom and autonomy on the one hand, but more control and standards on the
other hand. In Flemish education policy, although the political and cultural context differs from the
Anglo-Saxon context Dean is describing, some features can be noticed. We have attainment targets as
(minimum) standards, aiming at leaving significant autonomy to schools in realizing them, while

12
school audits and periodical tests control that realization. But at the same time government encourages
schools to be responsible for their own policy by evaluating their policy self-reports.

Closely related to the analysis of Dean, Rose (1996, 1999; Rose & Miller, 1992) uses the concepts of
governing at a distance and advanced liberal government in order to label the present tendencies in
the relation between government and citizens. His work is interesting in its focus on the changed role
of expertise in the governmental sphere. According to Rose, governing at a distance has been a
structural feature and purpose of governing since the 19th century liberal state. The challenge in the
liberal state is to limit governmental interventions in the economic domain and the domain of civic
liberties, yet at the same time taking care of order and security. In view of this, liberal governing at a
distance finds a useful tool in the knowledge and authority of experts or professionals. Expertise
authority arising out of a claim to knowledge, to neutrality and to efficacy came to provide a number
of solutions to this apparent opposition between the need to govern in the interests of morality and
order, and the need to restrict government in the interests of liberty and economy. (Rose, 1996,
p.39). Experts or professionals refers to all people with specific knowledge about society, like civil
servants, scientists, engineers or bureaucrats (Rose, 1999).
In a social welfare state experts are important for governing as well: government can use their
knowledge about society to define welfare problems, in other words, to detect citizens needs, attitudes
and relationships. On the other hand, government can also use experts authority to make science
based welfare programs accepted by the citizens. The truth claims of expertise were highly significant
here: through the powers of truth, distant events and persons could be governed at arms length:
political rule would not itself set out the norms of individual conduct, but would install and empower a
variety of professionals, investing them with authority to act as experts in the devices of social rule.
(Rose, 1999, p.40).
However, in advanced liberal regimes, the relation between government and the experts is
perceived in a different, neoliberal way. Like all other domains of society, experts are subjected to
market mechanisms. This means that government should no longer feel responsible for expertise, or
that experts are not gaining (governmental) authority in an automatic way anymore. On the contrary,
experts have to be self-responsible for their output and authority. The new political initiatives often
take the form of an attempted autonomization of entities from the state, or rather, an autonomization
of the state from direct controls over, and responsibility for, the actions and calculations of
businesses, welfare organizations and so forth. They entail the adoption by the centre of a range of
devices which seek both to create a distance between the formal institutions of the state and other
social actors, and to act upon them in a different manner. (Rose & Miller, 1992, p.199). Government
tries to guarantee the quality of knowledge and science by stimulating competition, budget controls
and audits. In this way, not government but the consumers determine authority, truth and expertise;
this is, according to Rose, a new phase in the technique of governing at a distance. In its ideal form,

13
this imagines a free market where the relations between citizens and experts are not organized and
regulated through compulsion but through acts of choice. (...) One sees a reconfiguration of the
political salience of expertise, a new way of responsibilizing experts in relation to claims upon them
other than those of their own criteria of thruth and competence, their assembling into new relations of
power. (Rose, 1999, p.55)

In line with Rose and Dean, and elaborating on the new role of expertise, Simons (2007) notices the
strategic role of feedback information in the changed relation between government and the education
field. Both on an international level (TIMMS, PISA, etc.) and in Flemish policy (performance tests,
newsletters, an information rich environment, etc.), the circulation and exchange of feedback
information to enhance performance and quality has become increasingly important. This information
is needed for national governments or schools to position themselves towards other governments or
schools, and to stimulate a process of competitive self-improvement in order to become the best
performer.
Simons (2007) argues that this need for information is part of governing in an advanced liberal
way; the collection and distribution of information on performance is needed in order for actors in the
field of education increasingly organised as a market to be responsive and to be involved in
permanent innovation. Due to the strategic use of information today, what is installed, according to
Simons (2007), is a regime of power where the many observe the few (synopticon) and where each
and all are able to learn to know themselves in view of watching and observing the spectacle, that is,
the list with best performing actors (e.g. member states, or schools, or teachers)22. In this way, the
present (advanced liberal) government is realizing a successful steering mechanism for member states
(in Europe) as well as for schools (in Flanders): The spectacle of performance puts states and schools
into a position in which they long themselves to become an image of good performance, to be part of
the happy few being watched and admired by the many, and to be a champion themselves.
(Simons, 2007, in press).

Summarizing, we can say that several authors notice a clear influence of a neoliberal ideology or the
presence of an advanced liberal rationality in (education) policy, and hence a changed relation
between (national) government and society. In the elaboration of this shift, the strategic role of
expertise and information has been stressed. Based on this, it is possible to connect in the next section
my interest in the magazine Klasse with the observations of the changed relation between
government and education, in view of a well-defined problem statement.

22
The panopticon refers to a form of power that works through the observation and surveillance of the many by the
few, and where the few (those in power) are often not visible. According to Foucault (1972, p.298) this modern form of power
is quite different from the classic form of power in the spectacle. In the spectacle of public punishments, as well as in the
theatre for example, the many observe the few and this observation is meant as to control the masses. Matthiesen (1997,
p.219) refers to this as the synopticon and argues that our present viewer society combines both panoptical and
synoptical mechanism (Simons, 2007, in press)

14
 2.3. Problem statement

Whether we call it advanced liberalism, governing at a distance or coordination of coordination, it

can be said that there is clear evidence that (national) governments now relate to society and education
in a different way. Against this background, it is my contention that the magazine Klasse can be
regarded as an articulation of this changed relation. Klasse emerged at a certain moment and evolved
in a specific way during the past fifteen years in content and layout. In view of this, it would be
interesting to investigate whether Klasse is a specific manifestation of the new relationship that is
described in the international literature.

Following Simons (2007), we could say that the success of the magazine Klasse can fit within the
feedback or information relation between government and the education field. Like I said earlier,
Klasse is one of the products of the new communication policy of the Flemish Ministry of
Education. But we can ask: Why was and is government in need of better communication with the
education field? Why was and is the education field in need of more information about education
policy on the one hand, and about their colleagues in other schools in Flanders and abroad on the
other hand? In terms of the synopticon, we could say that Klasse allows the entire education field to
gaze at the same (policy) problems and the same answers to these problems, but also at the same best
performers or interesting teachers/principals/schools in education practice.
Moreover, following the general research thesis of the research project Education and the Public,
we can argue that both government and the education field are interpreting in a specific way what
public space in education is and has to be; and, in particular, this seems to mean today: a space where
(more and better) information is regarded as absolutely necessary. Thus, this mechanism of
informing and informing oneself is structuring the relation between government, public space and
the education field in a very specific way.

Nevertheless, I am hesitant to search Klasse for aspects of a neoliberal governance ideology.

Instead of laying down a (neoliberal) framework on Klasse, I assume that the text of Klasse, but
policy documents and education practitioners too, will tell me something about the present relation
between government, the education field and public space. So it seems important to me not to start
from a priori models of how this relation can be structured, but to look directly at the context at stake.
By looking at neoliberal tendencies in Klasse, I might obscure other possible tendencies or
interpretations of the relation between government and the education field. Thus, instead of testing a
specific analytical framework for interpreting Klasse, I would like to choose another way about and

15
make some contributions to the theoretical perspectives on education policy and the relation between
government and the education field, through our analysis of the magazine Klasse.

In this problem statement, I am assuming that the text in Klasse does not distribute information, but
steers and structures public space and the education field. What is written in Klasse and the way it is
written and presented, constructs what is at stake in Flemish education. This means that I am
interpreting (policy) texts as discourse. In the next section, I will work out this perspective on text
as discourse and the consequences for my interpretation of government. Then this theoretical
framework will lead me to some concrete research questions.

16
 3. Theoretical framework and research questions

My theoretical framework is inspired by the governmentality studies that several authors conducted,
based on the perspective of the (late) Michel Foucault (e.g. Barry, Osbourne & Rose, 1996; Burchell,
Gordon & Miller, 1991; Dean, 1999; Rose, 1999; Rose & Miller, 1992; Simons, 2003). Since the
governmentality studies define power, government and the subject in a particular way, this
perspective is offering me an interesting background for dealing with my problem statement about the
relation between government and the education field, and more specific for my analysis of the
magazine Klasse. However, a challenge with these studies of governmentality is to look for
concrete methods to analyse policy contexts. Thus, in order to conduct my research, I will supply the
perspective of governmentality studies with concrete research methods derivated from other
perspectives.
In particular, I will use the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of Fairclough (1989, 1997, 2003) as
a specific method for analysing in a systematic way the order of discourse in Klasse. But in my
perspective, following the governmentality studies, this concept of order of discourse can not tell me
all I want to know about the present relation between government and the education field. Moreover, I
will not follow Faircloughs ideas about a social analysis of the order of discourse, that starts from a
specific conception of power, ideology and hegemony. However, I think Faircloughs concrete method
can bring me in the right direction to answer my research interest.
So, first I will clarify the (policy) text as discourse-conception of Fairclough and his method of
critical discourse analysis. Secondly, the perspective of studies in governmentality will be worked
out.

3.1. (Policy)Text as discourse

My main research interest concerns the analysis of the present relation between government and the
education field; so I will conduct a policy analysis. In this part, I will elucidate how I conceive of the
sort of policy analysis I will accomplish, focusing on (policy) text as discourse.

3.1.1. Studying education policy

Policy analysis is a concept with various meanings. On the one hand, there are different views on
what has to be taken as policy, while on the other hand there are different possible methods for
analysing policy.

17
 For a definition of policy we are following Codd (1999, p.19): Policy here is taken to be any
course of action (or inaction) relating to the selection of goals, the definition of values or the
allocation of resources. Fundamentally, policy is about the exercise of political power and the
language that is used to legitimate that process.
In the international literature on policy analysis, often a distinction is made between analysis of
policy and analysis for policy. Howlett and Ramesh (2003) label these respectively as policy
studies and policy analysis, with policy studies referring to that studies conducted mostly by
academics and concerned with understanding overall public policy processes and improving theories
of policy-making and methodologies of analysis. (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003, p.11). In policy
studies, one can study the content of policy in terms of the ideologies, values or assumptions
underlying, the effects of policy, or the emergence of specific policy ideas (Codd, 1999; Olssen et al.,
2004). On the contrary, policy analysis is related to applied research with a prescriptive orientation,
aiming at systematically designing, implementing and evaluating existing policies. (Howlett &
Ramesh, 2003, p.11)23. Further, policy analysis can include specific recommendations for policy, or
more general information and data where policy can base on.
In my research, I will conduct a policy study, in other words, an analysis of policy. However, the
starting point of this analysis is not the official policy documents of the Flemish government, but a
particular magazine distributed by the government, Klasse. In this way, I want to investigate both the
emergence and the context of the current education policy in Flanders, based on this specific sort of
text. Since there are several ways of conceiving of and analysing texts, I will now clarify my
particular view.

3.1.2. (Policy)Text as discourse

Analysis of policy texts not only includes some view on what policy is and what analysis has to be
like, but also specific ideas about policy texts itself.
Some authors presume that a policy text is the mirror of the intentions of the policy makers or
authors of the text. The document is seen as nothing more than a paper for the communication of
ideas. In this view, the content of the policy text should be analysed by making the only right and
authoritative interpretation of the text. These authors are assuming that language and reality are not in
a direct relation, but are mediated by the thinking of persons in this case the intentions of the policy
makers and the interpretations of the analyst. This perspective is called linguistic idealism, that is,
attempts to analyse policy documents by explicating the ideas within them and clarifying their

23
Howlett and Ramesh (2003) have classified the different approaches for policy analysis in a more detailled way too,
according their level of analysis (macro, meso or micro), their method of analysis (deductive or inductive) and their unit of
analysis (individuals or structures).

18
intended meanings, presuppose a theory of language which may be called idealistic because of the
posited relationship between words, thoughts and things. (Codd, 1999, p.23).

Other authors argue that this perspective on language and reality is not adequate to understand how
policy texts work. They even speak of an intentional fallacy, or the naive idea that intentions are
copied directly into a text and can be extracted from it in a simple way (Codd, 1999; Olssen et al.,
2004). On the contrary, they argue that language use always produces social effects and thus can be an
instrument or object of power. Language is not only an instrument of communication or even of
knowledge, but also an instrument of power. One seeks not only to be understood but also to be
believed, obeyed, respected, distinguished. (Bourdieu in Olssen et al., 2004, p.66). In emphasizing
this bond between social practice and language, these authors use the concept discourse. The
term discourse has come to be used to embody both the formal system of signs and the social practices
which govern their use. In this sense, discourse refers not only to the meaning of language but also to
the real effects of language-use, to the materiality of language. A discourse is a domain of language-
use and therefore a domain of lived experience. (Codd, 1999, p.26).
The relation between language and social practice works in a double way: language is not only
used and constituted in social practices, but influences and changes this social practices at the same
time. Phillips and Jorgensen (2002) give the example of the event of a flood, a river that overflows its
banks, to illustrate this inextricable bond between language and reality. The rise in the water level is
a material fact. But as soon as people try to ascribe meaning to it, it is no longer outside discourse.
(Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002, p.9). Some people will describe this event in terms of a natural
phenomenon, others as a result of political mismanagement, and still others as Gods will. But the
way how people describe things is influencing reality; it determines which actions have to be
undertaken to stop floods in the future, like higher dykes, political opposition or a better Christian life.
Thus the ascription of meaning in discourse works to constitute and change the world. (Phillips &
Jorgensen, 2002, p.9).
Discourse is about what can be said and thought, but also about who, when, where and with
which authority can speak (Ball, 1999). When we are looking at language in social practices, that is at
discourse, we have to ask ourselves why some things can be said, and why others can not. The
question which I ask is not about codes but about events: the law of existence of statements, that which
rendered them possible them and none other in their place: the conditions of their singular
emergence. (Foucault, 1991b, p.59). Moreover, discourses are always changing, they can emerge and
disappear. Discourse is inherent historical: Discourse in this sense is not an ideal, timeless form ()
it is, from beginning to end, historical a fragment of history () posing its own limits, its divisions,
its transformations, the specific modes of its temporality. (Foucault, 1972, p.117).

19
Hence, interpreting language use and social practice as discourse has implications for the
understanding of policy, as well as for the analysis of (policy) texts. In this view, policy is regarded as
a textual intervention in practice, because policy texts pose certain problems and indicate how people
could solve them. Policies do not normally tell you what to do, they create circumstances in which
the range of options available in deciding what to do are narrowed or changed, or particular goals or
outcomes are set. (Ball, 1999, p.8). Accordingly, policy texts are not only texts but always part of
discourses and social practice, so we necessarily have to try to understand this discursive level. In
seeing language as discourse and as social practice, one is committing oneself not just to analysing
texts, nor just to analysing processes of production and interpretation, but to analysing the
relationship between texts, processes, and their social conditions, both the immediate conditions of the
situational context and the more remote conditions of institutional and social structures. (Fairclough,
1989, p.26).

3.1.3. Critical Discourse Analysis

In spite of the wide spread interpretation of (policy)text as discourse, there are not many concrete
methods of discourse analysis. However, Fairclough (1989, 1997, 2003) developed such a concrete
method for analysing discourse in (policy) texts. I will work out his perspective on language, social
practice and discourse and his three-level framework for Critical Discourse Analysis here. In section
4.2.1. then, I will explain how I am going to use this framework in my study.

Fairclough (2003) distinguishes three levels of dialectically intertwined social practice and language in
social reality, represented in a schematic way in the next figure.

20
= (part of) social
structures LANGUAGE

Social analysis = discourses = ways of

explanation representing (1)
= (part of) ORDERS OF
social practices DISCOURS genres = ways of acting (2)

Discourse analysis
styles = ways of being (3)
= interpretation

= (part of)
social events TEXT

Internal relations: semantics, grammar,

vocabulary, phonology
Text analysis =
description
Aspects of meaning:
representation (1)
action (2)
identification (3)

Figure 1: a schematic representation of the framework of Fairclough

In the social pile, Fairclough (2003) distinguishes social structures at the most abstract level,
followed by social practices, and social events at the most concrete level. Language, orders of
discourse and texts are respectively associated with this levels24. The most abstract level of social
structures/languages is the most stable and durable as well; languages and social structures are not
changing every day. On the contrary, the most concrete level of social events and texts is more
changing and cursory. Anyhow, the three levels are influencing each other constantly, both from the
abstract to the concrete level and vice versa. Hence, Fairclough argues that discourse is constitutive
and constituted: social events influence discourse and social structures, as well as social structures
influence discourse and social events (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002). For example, the level of social
structures/languages limits the possibilities of social events and texts in a structural way. Some
sentences are allowed in the language English and some are not (e.g. I write a text versus text
write I a). In the same way social structures (social classes, economical structure, gender, ) define
in part what is possibly happening in social events.

24
It is important to notice that text doesnt only mean written text, but also spoken language, visual images or a
combination of these (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002). So we can say that all language use can be analysed as texts.

21
 However, this relation between social structures/language and social events/texts is a very
complex one, because it is mediated by social practices/orders of discourse. Social practices and
orders of discourse are, according to Fairclough, the more or less fixed ways of acting and speaking
in specific social contexts (e.g. education, medicine, psychology, university, hospitals, etc.). Following
Phillips and Jorgensen (2002, p.72), we can define orders of discourse more concrete as: the sum of
all the genres and discourses which are in use within a specific social domain. We could say that
social structures/language shape the structural possibilities for speaking and acting, but that social
practices/orders of discourse select some of these possibilities and exclude others, for example the
specific use of some concepts or specific ways of interaction. Social practices can be thought of as
ways of controlling the selection of certain structural possibilities and the exclusion of others, and the
retention of these selections over time, in particular areas of social life. (Fairclough, 2003, p. 23-24).
In education practice, for example, some ways of acting are possible and normal, while others are
unusual or even impossible. Teachers interact with their pupils in another way than a manager with his
staff, or a shop-assistant with his clients. In the same way, orders of discourse select some language
possibilities and exclude others. Teachers speak in a specific way with their pupils, managers in a
specific way with their Board of Directors.

The overall objective of Critical Discourse Analysis is to investigate the relation between texts,
discourses and social structures, in order to explain (and change) the (ideological) dominance of some
(suppressive) discourses in society. For this purpose, three levels of analysis are distinguished in
Faircloughs framework, according to the three levels of language use and social reality (Phillips &
Jorgensen, 2002; Titscher, Meyer, Wodak & Vetter, 2000). A critical discourse analysis starts always
studying the most concrete level, thus texts, in a text analysis. In this phase, the internal relations in the
text and the external relations between the text and social reality, and between the text and other texts,
are analysed. The internal relations of a text are the use of vocabulary and grammatics, the relations
between the sentences, etc. In general, this means becoming aware of the language choices that have
been made in the text.
Beside this, the relation between a text and social reality consists of three different aspects: action,
representation and identification. With action, Fairclough (2003) means the relation of a text to a
specific event; representation is the relation of the text to the context or the social world; and
identification refers to the relation of the text to the persons involved. In a research report, for
example, the statement is made that in Flanders, the school tracks of immigrant children are not the
same as the school tracks of native children. The representation is: x is different of y, referring to a
specific relation in reality. With this statement, the researcher is informing the readers about what he
or she investigated and now knows, while it is assumed that the readers are not knowing this already
(action: the text is doing something). At last, the researcher identifies hisself or herself with his or her

22
text by saying that x is different of y and not possibly different, or probably different; the
researcher indicates that he or she is very sure about this statement.

Inspired by critical discourse analysts, I am not only interested in the level of the concrete text, but in
the orders or discourse that are present in certain social practices. The transition from the text level to
the discourse level can be achieved by a discourse analysis of the text. The questions the researcher
will ask hisself or herself are: which discourses25 and genres are present in the text? and How are the
different discourses and genres related to each other? (Taylor, 2004). The different aspects of the text,
that is the actions, representations and identifications, are therefore connected with analogue elements
at the level of the order of discourse, namely genres, discourses and styles. Genres are different
ways of acting discursively, which are specific for particular social practices and orders of discourse.
For example, teaching is a genre, specific for education practice, and interviewing is another genre,
specific for journalists or researchers. Discourses then are particular ways of representing reality or
different perspectives on the world. For example, in its policy statements, a liberal Minister of
education may represent education and society in a different way than a socialist Minister of education
should do, because he perceives education practice and society in a different way. Finally, the
identifications in the text are connected with styles at the level of the order of discourse: our way of
being, that is our personal and social identities, are influenced by the order of discourse. A principal
can have a totally different style in communication with the parents of the pupils, than as a father in
the communication with his own children.
With regard to orders of discourse, according to Fairclough (2003), there are yet two other
important things. In the first place, a text can include different genres, discourses and styles at the
same time. And secondly, texts are related to each other by genre chains. This means that the
information in one text can be translated into other texts, using a totally different language. In
Klasse, for example, a research report will not be presented in the same language as the original
report, but rather as an interview with the researcher about the most interesting results for education
practice. And teachers who read about this research in Klasse will discuss it in another language in
the school corridor. However, this texts are all part of the same genre chain, because the same
information is told.

The last step in CDA, is called social analysis (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002; Titscher et al., 2000). At
this level, the researcher tries to explain the order of discourse by connecting discourse with the wider
social context. In Faircloughs perspective, this means: how the order of discourse represents or

25
Fairclough uses the concept discourse in different ways. In the most abstract sense, discourse refers to language
use as social practice. () Secondly, discourse is understood as the kind of language used within a specific field, such as
political or scientific discourse. And thirdly, in the most concrete usage, discourse is used as a count noun (a discourse, the
discourse, the discourses, discourses) referring to a way of speaking which gives meaning to experiences from a particular
perspective. (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002, p.66-67). In the sentence above, we are using the concept discourse in its most
concrete sense.

23
contradicts the dominant power relations in society. In his view, social structures like social classes,
gender, race, etc. influence which orders of discourse become dominant in society. Moreover, orders
of discourse can be more or less ideological, in other words, can be more or less suppressing some
groups or persons in society (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2002). Then, the critical aspect of CDA is
revealing this inequalities by textual and discourse analysis, and trying to change them in order to
reach a more equal society.

As mentioned earlier, the point of departure of my research is the perspective of governmentality, not
a critical social analysis that is focusing on the struggle between orders of discourse for hegemony in
society. Based on a detailed analysis of how Klasse at the level of the order of discourse works,
my concern is to understand the changed relation between government and the field of education.
Hence, for my conception of the notions power, government and the subject, I will not rely on the
framework of Fairclough but on the framework of governmentality. This will be clarified in the next
section.

3.2. A governmentality perspective on Klasse and education policy

Instead of using Faircloughs perspective on ideology, power and government although I will use his
analytical framework to analyse the order of discourse I am drawing on the governmentality
studies of the late Michel Foucault (and many other authors), for linking Faircloughs level of the
order of discourse to a concern in how we are governed today and (have to) behave ourselves. As
explained in the problem statement, the governmentality studies are interesting because they develop a
very specific view on power, government and the subject.
In most classic (e.g. Marxist) policy perspectives, the state is regarded as the main focus to
analyse (education) policy. It is seen as a fixed entity, consisting of political and administrative
institutions, that possesses the power and authority to govern society. In this views, the state has the
monopoly position for regulating by laws and penalizing the inhabitants of a certain territory. By this,
the state can enhance or limit the freedom of its citizens. Criticial policy analysis, from this
perspective, is about revealing dominant power relations by focusing on the ideologies being used
(Dean, 1999). Here, power is regarded as a possession that can be used to suppress or limit freedom.
These assumptions about the state, power and policy are leading to research questions like: Who has
power in society and who is suppressed by this? and Which ideology is used for the legitimation of
power relations?.

Studies of governmentality, and Foucault in particular, are not interested in investigating what power
is and who is using it. Instead, the main purpose is to clarify how power works in society in specific

24
historical periods. According to Foucault, power and authority should not be analysed as what the
state or other dominant groups possess. Moreover, the state is not the only entity that governs and
power has not to be suppressive. Thus, in Foucaults work, much attention is devoted to the way
power relations take shape and how power is being exercised at different times and places in society
(Dean, 1999; Olssen et al., 2004).

3.2.1. Power and government

Foucault suggests to analyse power as something that is not fixed in advance, that will not always be
the same, or that is not owned by some actors, but as something that is exercised. Which is to say,
of course, that something called Power, with or without a capital letter, which is assumed to exist
universally in a concentrated or diffused form, does not exist. Power only exists when it is put into
action. (Foucault, 1982, p.788). Power is rather a bottom-up than a top-down process and can be
both liberating and suppressive (Olssen et al., 2004). Moreover, and this will be explained in more
detail later on in the text, the focus of an analysis of government should be how different actors in
society exercise power (Dean, 1999).
An important conclusion, then, is that the state is not the only actor who can exercise power.
Nonetheless, this perspective doesnt deny the importance of the state: I dont want to say that the
State isnt important; what I want to say is that relations of power, and hence the analysis that must be
made of them, necessarily extends beyond the limits of the State. (Foucault, 1980, p.122). We could
say that the state is not essential or necessary, that it does not have some independent functionality, but
that it is a specific institution where the problem of power relations expresses itself in a prominent way
(Rose & Miller, 1992).
Foucault shows that power relations are only real power relations (contrasted to relations of
violence) when there are two elements fulfilled: that the person over whom power is exercised is seen
as a free person who can act, and secondly, that in power relations new responses and reactions
become possible (Foucault, 1982). With these criteria, Foucault is referring to the subjects freedom
for acting and for its own conduct, and this is why he aligned power relations with governmental
relations. The exercise of power consists in guiding the possibility of conduct and putting in order the
possible outcome. Basically power is less a confrontation between to adversaries or the linking of one
to the other than a question of government. (Foucault, 1982, p.789).

Foucault defined government as the conduct of conduct (Gordon, 1991, p.2)26. In one sense, the
concept government stands for leading or steering. To govern, in this sense, is to structure the
possible field of actions of others. (Foucault, 1982, p.790). In another sense, government can mean

26
Conduire des conduits (Foucault, 1982a, p.237) of het sturen van zelfsturingen (Simons, 2003, p.36).

25
behaving oneself or self-government. Thus the notion of government extends to cover the way in
which an individual questions his or her own conduct (or problematizes it) so that he or she may be
better able to govern it. (Dean, 1999, p.12). With this double meaning as background, we can say
that governing means: trying to influence other people or ourselves to act and behave in a specific
way, or acting upon the self-government or conduct of people. (Simons & Masschelein, 2006,
p.419). In this sense, government is not something that only comes from above (e.g. the State, the
police, the employer). Everyone relates, all the time, to others in governmental relations; everyone is
influenced by others or tries to structure the behaviour of other people. Governing is always a more or
less deliberated or calculated activity with particular objectives (Foucault, 1982, p.790). Summarizing,
Deans definition (1999, p.11) illustrates the concept government in all its complexity: Government
is any more or less calculated and rational activity, undertaken by a multiplicity of authorities and
agencies, employing a variety of techniques and forms of knowledge, that seeks to shape conduct by
working through our desires, aspirations, interests and beliefs, for definite but shifting ends and with a
diverse set of relatively unpredictable consequences, effects and outcomes.

Thus, governmental or power relations are assuming a particular freedom of the subject. According to
Foucault, the government of conduct always implies an autonomous or free actor, or in other words,
someone who can behave in another way and can be influenced in his or her will and conduct. Power
is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or
collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving,
several reactions and diverse comportments, may be realized. (Foucault, 1982, p.790). When
someone is forced and has no choice to behave otherwise, Foucault doesnt speak of government or
power, but of violence. Government only works via the assumed freedom of both governors and
governed, and is outlining the borders shapes the possibilities or limitations in between actors can
move freely. Moreover, in governmental relations, we are addressed to see and behave ourselves in a
specific way. Are we to be governed as members of a flock to be led, as children to be coddled and
educated, as a human resource to be exploited, as members of a population to be managed, as legal
subjects with rights, as responsible citizens of an interdependent society, as autonomous individuals
with our own illimitable aspirations, as value-driven members of a moral community, (Rose,
1999, p.41). This free subject is not once and for all the same, but is constituded socially and
historically (Olssen et al., 2004). The study of how people are made as subjects (that is, processes of
subjectivation) in a particular period or society, has always been at the centre of Foucaults work27.

27
My objective, instead, has been to create a history of the different modes by which, in our culture, human beings are
made subjects. (Foucault, 1982, p.777).

26
 3.2.2. Governmentality

Starting from this interpretation of government, the notion governmentality (gouvernementalit)

that was introduced by Foucault, has two main different meanings28 (Dean, 1999).

In a first sense, governmentality is referring to the contraction of government and mentality. With
this neologism, Foucault stressed that governing assumes a certain mentality or rationality, or a
thinking and knowing (savoir) about how to govern. Governmentality emphasizes the relation
between practices of government and thought, or mentalities as a whole of knowledge, opinions and
ideas (Haahr, 2004). A rationality of government will thus mean a way or system of thinking about
the nature of the practice of governement (who can govern; what governing is; what or who is
governed), capable of making some form of that activity thinkable and practicable both to its
practitioners and to those upon whom it was practised. (Gordon, 1991, p.3). In other words, a study
of governmentality explores the strategies of governing people and governing ourselves (Simons &
Masschelein, 2006).
This thinking about government has to be made practical and technical in order to work and
have any effects, it attaches itself to a technology for its realization. (Rose, 1999, p.51). A
governmental rationality uses particular governmental techniques (instruments, procedures,
institutions, etc.) and is translated in specific concrete and strategic governmental programmes in order
to influence the self-government of people (Simons & Masschelein, 2006). These organised and well
considered practices of government and self-government, which are more or less stable, are defined as
regimes of government. They are the more or less organized ways, at any given time and place, we
think about, reform and practice such things as caring, administering, counselling, curing, punishing,
educating and so on. (Dean, 1999, p.21). A regime of government is not a totality, nor the expression
of one principle behind it, but an accidental assemblage (Dean, 1999, p.29) of several heterogeneous
elements: a combination of components created elsewhere (Simons, 2003).
A governmental rationality is not only technical, but assumes a certain interpretation of truth. On
the one hand, government and self-government are influenced by what we think as truth, but on the
other hand, government and self-government are producing some particular truth as well. For example,
the government of education practice is based on certain (e.g. statistical) truths about schools,
teachers and children, but the process of governing is generating certain knowledge about aspects of
learning and teaching processes as well.

28
Senellart (in Foucault, 2004) is distinguishing a third meaning, but this is getting less attention in the literature than
the other two descriptions. According to him, governmentality is not the contraction of government and mentality, but
has to be interpreted like musicality, meaning the reflection about the specific character of governing.
gouvernementalit drivant de gouvernemental comme musicalit de musical ou spatialit de spatial et
dsignant, selon les occurences, le champ stratgique des relations de pouvoir ou les caractres spcifiques de lactivit de
gouvernement. (Senellart in Foucault, 2004, p.406).

27
 Summarizing, government is integrating three different elements: a specific truth and knowledge
conception (rationality or mentality), particular instruments for exercising power (techniques) and a
particular idea about the subjects who are governed (subjectivity). Studies of governmentality aim to
investigate how this thought works in specific regimes of government, which governmental
technology is used, and which subject is called into existence.

In another sense, governmentality refers to a specific historical period wherein a new way of
thinking about power and government has developed29. In early-modern Europe (2nd half of the 16th
century), for the first time the art of government was regarded as a special and necessary activity of
the State (Foucault, 1991a). Before, the prince governed his territory and the inhabitants, a father
governed his family and household (economy), the teacher his pupils and the priest governed as a
shepherd the souls of his flock. What Foucault (1991a, p.103) defined as the governmentalisation of
the state, is the fact that the state became ever more interested in not only governing the territory, but
the people or population as well, what means their welfare and well-being30. The state became a
complex of centralising governing relationships that aims at governing people. (Simons &
Masschelein, 2006, p.419).
In this process of governmentalisation of the state, Foucault distinguished two historical phases.
In the first phase, governments tried to dissolve their governmental problems by modelling the state as
a household. In other words, the state had to govern the people like a good family man and integrated
the economy (the right way to manage individuals, goods and well-being) in political practice. In the
second phase, a specific science of government was developed and the new notion of the
population with specific characteristics like epidemics, birth rates, etc. and statistics (the
science of the state) became central in the governmental rationality. It was through the development
of the science of government that the notion of economy came to be recentred on to that different plane
of reality which we characterize today as the economic, and it was also through this science that it
became possible to identify problems specific to the population. (Foucault, 1991a, p.99). In
particular, this meant the development of a governmental state, that is, a state that regards its role in
terms of a detailed, knowledge-based administration or government of peoples life (Dean, 1999;
Foucault, 1991a). In the early-modern state, the welfare and well-being of the population became the
ultimate purpose of governmental practices and the traditional forms of governing people, integrated
in settings such as the school, the family or religion, became integrated in the political government
(Foucault, 1991a). According to Foucault, from this moment onwards, it starts to make sense to speak
of the state in terms of governing a population and to perceive in the notion of governing a political
connotation.

29
For a detailed historical analysis of this conception of governmentality: see Dean (1999), Gordon (1991),
Rabinow (1984), Foucault (1991a; 2004).
30
In this way, Foucault is not defending an tatization of sociey, what is meaning that the State is (intentionally)
taking over the other governing practices because it wants power over them.

28
 3.2.3. An analytics of government or study of governmentality

An 'analytics' of government or a study of governmentality aims to investigate how a certain

governmental phenomenon could appear, is mentioned and is transformed. In other words, one
analyses the (historical) conditions of possibility of a particular regime of government, in order to
show that our taken-for-granted ways of acting and thinking are not necessary or evident (Dean, 1999).
The target of the analysis of governmentality is not institutions, theories or ideology, but
practices with the aim of grasping the conditions which make these acceptable at a given
moment. (Marshall & Peters, 1999, p.xxix).

In an analytics of government, the regime of government is elucidated by looking at the

problematizations that have been made. This are the specific moments and situations in which
government becomes 'a problem', or the governors are asking themselves: 'How governing?'. At the
moment of problematization, certain problems are identified and certain answers are given. This
development of a given into a question, this transformation of a group of obstacles and difficulties into
problems to which the diverse solutions will attempt to produce a response, this is what constitutes the
point of problematization and the specific work of thought. (Foucault, 1984, p.389). An analytics of
government is using these visible solutions, or the specific policy programmes, for deducting the
original problems, aiming to re-problematize them (Simons, 2003). For example, when education
policy is developing quality indicators and searching for methods for the evaluation of quality, then
this means government is perceiving the 'quality' of education as a problem, that is, the notion
education quality is used to formulate the problems at stake as well as to propose particular ways to
find solutions. Re-problematizing this definition of problems (and of solutions) means to indicate how
this problematization (for instance, in terms of quality) has emerged. 31.
Thus, an analytics of government is using the visible solutions in the concrete policy programmes
as a starting point for its analysis. However, these explicit and well-thought programmes will not be
sufficient for elucidating the internal logic, or the rationality or strategy of a regime of government32.
Policy programmes () are not simply formulations of wishes or intentions. (Rose & Miller, 1992,
p.182). Starting from this visible and calculated programmes, we will have to re-problematize the
moralities, epistemologies and idioms of political power (Rose & Miller, 1992, p.182). In other

31
For a detailed analysis of this will for quality in education, see Simons, 2003.
32
Following Pawson, Dale (2004) is distinguishing between a policy programme and the 'ontology' of this
programme. Not the programmes content, is working or governing, but the theory that lays behind. Basically, the
Programme is the intervention, or policy, or innovation, that is being introduced or implemented with a view to bringing out
beneficial changes in some social phenomenon. The Programme Ontology, by contrast, accounts for how programmes,
policies, etc., actually work. It is essentially the theory of the programme as opposed to its content (and the theory is
typically quite likely to be implicit). (Dale, 2004, p.188).

29
terms, we could say that an analytics of government is trying to make a diagnosis of a specific domain
in a specific period. Diagnosing means that one investigates the visible symptoms of the sick, and then
starts to isolate, combine and organize them. They try to diagnose an array of lines of thought, of
will, of invention, of programmes and failures, of acts and counter-acts. (Rose, 1999, p.21). In the
same sense, the solutions in a policy programme are the symptoms we can use in order to diagnose the
problematizations. And this problematizations can learn us more about the rationality of the regime of
government.

The relation between political rationalities and such programmes of government is not one of
derivation or determination but of translation both a movement from one space to another, and an
expression of a particular concern in another modality. (Rose & Miller, 1992, p.181). The concept
'translation relation' explains how a policy text written in Brussels', can be understood by, and can
have effect on, the various local actors in the (education) field. The ideas and rationality of
government are really 'translated' in education practice. In the dynamics of translation, alignments
are forged between the objectives of authorities wishing to govern and the personal projects of those
organizations, groups and individuals who are the subjects of government. (Rose, 1999, p.48).
This attention given to problematizations, symptoms and translation relations reflects the real
interest of an analytics of government, namely 'how things work'. Accordingly, an analytics of
government will ask how-questions. How, not in the sense of How does it manifest itself? but
By what means is it exercised? and What happens when individuals exert (as they say) power over
others? (Foucault, 1982, p.786). Asking this questions means that one aims to understande how
different actors are exercising power and authority, how specific knowledge and expertise are aligned
with particular governmental techniques and instruments and how different domains are made
governable and calculable.

Dean (1999) distinguishes four dimensions that are defining a regime of government, and thus have to
be investigated in an analytics of government. This particular points of interest will be the basis of my
analysis of Klasse as a study of the current regime of government.
A first dimension is the forms of visibility. Each regime of government has its particular ways of
visualising, and thus making governable and calculable, its domain of government and its subjects.
Government inspires and depends on a huge labour of inscription which renders reality into a
calculable form. (Rose & Miller, 1992, p.185). Examples of such visibilities are pictures, maps,
tables and statistical diagrams. But we can interpret Klasse as a specific way in which the
governmental policy on communication is becoming visible. At the same time, in Klasse all sorts of
tables, graphs and statistics are used to make education reality visible, and thus governable.
A second dimension is the rationality or mentality of the govermental practices, or the fact that
each regime of government is applying and producing particular procedures, expertise, strategies and

30
knowledge. For example, government is thinking in a specific way about how communication with the
participants in education practice could happen best, e.g. by using electronical newsletters.
The third dimension is the material form of this mentalities and strategies, namely the
governmental technology or the specific techniques, instruments and mechanisms used for governing.
The complex of mundane programmes, calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents and
procedures through which authorities seek to embody and give effect to governmental ambitions.
(Rose & Miller, 1992, p.175). However, these governmental techniques are not just the realization of
the thought and knowledge of government. For example, the current Flemish government is using
electronical newsletters and the website 'klasse.vandaag' for communication, but this is only useful
since almost everyone has got a computer and an email account. But the reverse is true as well: only
because everyone, including government, is using websites, blogs and email for communication and
information, it becomes relevant and even necessary to have this technology at home.
The last dimension calls attention to the (individual or collective) identities that are assumed and
produced in regimes of government. Like we said earlier, a regime of government assumes particular
(real) subjects, but governmental programs and practices intend to shape subjects in a specific (ideal)
way as well. A particular status, capacities, characteristics, qualities, rights and duties can be desired
of individual people or groups, or can be the objective of governmental practices. This is not meaning
that a regime of government determines a particular identity. However, it is underlining specific
qualities and capacities.

Summarizing we can say that: an analytics of government takes as its central concern how we
govern and are governed within different regimes, and the conditions under which such regimes
emerge, continue to operate, and are transformed. (Dean, 1999, p.23). Drawing upon the results of a
critical discourse analysis of Klasse, I want to conduct an 'analytics of government', thus
investigating the visibilities, rationality, technology and subjectivation of the current regime of
government. For this purpose, I will now use this theoretical framework in order to pose some
concrete research questions.

3.3. The order of discourse in Klasse and Klasse as a specific

governmental instrument: Research questions

With Fairclough, we can say that the text of the magazine Klasse can be analysed at the level of
discourse and social practice. Hence, the magazine is not just an instrument for the transportation of
information from government to the participants in education practice. The magazine is doing
something. Klasse is constituted by educational social reality, but constitutes education reality at the
same time. Klasse reflects changes in educational policy and practice, but changes this practice of

31
policy and education too33. As explained earlier, the magazine provides us with an entry point to
analyse education and education policy, with a specific view on teachers, principals and pupils, with
some particular ideas about editing a readable magazine for teachers and principals. Klasse proposes
some educational problems or hot items that need to be solved. This does not mean the editorial
staff, or the Ministry, invents an order of discourse. Throughout Klasse, a certain discourse takes
shape or is actualized. Moreover, I assume the magazine Klasse combines different genres,
discourses and styles (like science, policy language, the voice of the practitioners, commercials, etc.).
So we can say we can detect in Klasse a specific order of discourse, in other words, a particular way
of speaking and thinking, and hence, a particular way of representing what matters in education today.
Additionally, and following Foucault, we can see the magazine Klasse as well as an answer to a
specific problematization of government, or to the question: How can we govern in the best way?
Klasse was and is still a governmental instrument, aiming at governing and structuring the education
field in a specific way. We can interprete the fact that Klasse emerged at a certain moment, has been
transformed in the content and layout during the past fifteen years, etc. as symptoms of the changed
governmental relation or as a new relationship between government and the education field. Klasse
was and is part of a governmental programme, a more or less concrete plan to inform education
practice34. Using the instrument Klasse, and additional policy documents, interviews and focus
groups, I want to make a diagnosis of (the changes in) the current regime of government in education.

Drawing upon these interests, the research project can be formulated in two concrete research
questions:

1) What is the magazine Klasse and what is it doing?

With this research question, I am intending two things. First, I want to know what the magazine
Klasse is. This may seem an superfluous question, because everyone in the field of education in
Flanders knows these magazines. But do we really know what it is? Do we really know its evolution in
content and layout? The research results of Devos et al. (2002) and the reader surveys conducted by
the editorial staff of Klasse, indicate that the magazine is read by a lot of teachers and principals and
that they like the activities, games and good practices being proposed every month. But what more?
Thus, in the first place, I want to make a detailed content analysis of the specific issues of Klasse,
outlining a complete picture of this magazine. Secondly, I want to know what Klasse is doing at the

33
There could be a tension between the dialectical discourse concept of Fairclough discourse (and Klasse) is
constituted and constituting and the perspective of governmentality, which is not assuming a dialectical discourse concept.
This problem will be investigated in a more detailed way while conducting research phase 3 of our study, the theoretical
contribution.
34
For example, since a few years the Ministry of Education formulates every year a communication policy plan, that
stipulates which initiatives should be taken for communication with the education field, which budgets every initiative will
receive, etc. and of course, with special attention to Klasse. This illustrates the programmatic dimension of education
policy (See Devos et al. 2002).

32
discursive level. This requires an analysis of the order of discourse in Klasse in the sense of
Fairclough, or investigating the particular combination of genres, discourses and styles in the
magazine.

2) How can the magazine Klasse do what it does in education?

With this question, I aim at an analytics of the governmental regime in education, or a governmentality
study. I want to investigate the conditions of possibility for the emergence of Klasse, or the specific
governmental rationality and subjectivation in education today. I assume the historical success of
Klasse as an information instrument was and is only possible because of a specific rationalization
and subjectivation of both government and the education field. In this way, the magazine Klasse and
its conditions of possibility can tell us something about the particular relationship between government
and education today. With regard to my purpose of conducting a study of governmentality, we could
think of the existence of Klasse as an example of a new phase in the governmentalisation of the
state, with its emphasis on performativity, accountability and information. In other words, we could
see Klasse as an instrument to governmentalize the teachers35, or to make teachers governable.
To answer this research question, I want to pose two more detailed subquestions, guiding my
research activities.
Which relation between government and the education field is presupposed in policy documents of
the Flemish Ministry of Education? Which rationalization of government and the education field
can we recognize, so that the magazine Klasse appears as useful or necessary for policy
communication?
How does the education field, i.c. teachers and principals, experience and rationalize the relation
between government and the education field, so that the magazine Klasse becomes necessary for
education practice?

In answering both research questions, I will reach the four general goals of my study.
In the first place, I try to understand how Klasse works. Secondly, my purpose is to map the regime of
government in education today, focusing on the specific relationship between government and the
education field. Thirdly, I want to enrich the governmentality studies literature with some concrete
methods for analysing what happens today. And last, I would like to confront my research results on
the relationship between government and the education field in Flanders with the international
education policy literature at this issue.

35
For a detailed analysis of the governmentalization of the school, see Simons, 2003.

33
Since my theoretical framework, the research questions and the general aims of my research are
worked out now, I can clarify the concrete research design and methodology.

34
 4. Research design and methodology

In my problem statement, I argued that I aim at mapping the present regime of government in
education, but not building on other governmentality studies like most authors do. Instead, I would
like to start from a specific entry point, Klasse, and investigate the governmental regime bottom up.
Therefore, I will conduct three research phases. The first research phase aims at answering the first
research question: What is the magazine Klasse and what is it doing? through a critical discourse
analysis of the magazine. The second phase is designed in order to answer the second research
question: How can the magazine Klasse do what it does in education? For this purpose, I will
combine the results of the discourse analysis of Klasse with several other research methods. A policy
text analysis will be conducted to learn more about the conditions of possibility at the governmental
side, while focus groups will be organised, investigating the experiences and ideas of the education
field. These studies are completed by some interviews with key informants of the editorial board of
Klasse and with policy makers responsible for Klasse, in order to get a wider picture of the
background and rationalizations of the emergence and existence of the magazine. All this specific
research methods are just used to gather concrete data and complementing the discourse analysis, and
will together lead to the mapping of the present regime of government in education.

Government KLASSE Education field

How is government Content How is the education field
represented in Klasse? Layout represented in Klasse?

Order of Discourse

Policy Analysis and Focus groups:

Interviews with key-informants: the conditions of possibility of
the conditions of possibility of Klasse Klasse at the education practice level
at the governmental level

Current regime of
government in education

Figure 2: schematic presentation of the research design

35
 4.1. Research phase 1: A critical discourse analysis of Klasse

In analysing the issues of Klasse, I will follow Faircloughs two first research phases, namely text
analysis and discourse analysis. I will study all the issues of the magazine Klasse that were edited
from 1990 to 2006 (150 issues).

First, in a preparatory phase, I will read the issues in order to draw up a scheme of the evolution in the
different sections of the magazine. This can give us a first indication about the possible evolution that
Klasse has undergone. The questions asked are:
- Which sections were used in Klasse during the last fifteen years?
- How have they been ordered in the issues?
- Which changes occurred? Were new sections inserted, old sections removed? Were sections
renamed (unless the same content), did they get a new content (with the same section title) or
were they put in order in a different way?

Next, I will conduct a text analysis. In each issue, I will analyse all the articles and place the results
side by side per issue. Both the internal and the external relations in the articles will be studied,
although the internal relations will be analysed only in a limited way because we are not aiming to
conduct a linguistic analysis of Klasse. However, a minimal linguistic analysis is needed as a basis
for the later discourse analysis and can give us interesting indications of the specific discourses and
their evolutions (Janks, 1997). Hence, we will use a reduced version of Faircloughs questions for text
analysis (Fairclough, 1989, p.110-111) in order to address some general linguistic features:
- Vocabulary: the specific words chosen in order to describe a (social) practice (e.g. positive or
negative concepts, particular terms for labelling specific actors, etc.) and the metafors chosen. For
example, deviant behaviour of children can be described in a positive (with attention to the shared
responsibility, reparation possibilities, etc.) or in a negative way (focussing on debt and harm,
etc.).
- Grammatics: the use of active or passive, positive or negative sentences (as indication of how
actors and processes are regarded), the use of pronouns, etc.
- The general structure of the text: how it is composed, how the paragraphs are relating to each
other, etc.
According to Janks (1997), it is especially important to give attention at how the patterns in the
different reading questions are confirming or contradicting each other. This will mean that different
discourses are present in the text, or particularly, in an issue of Klasse.
The external relations in the articles will be analysed in a more detailed way, this means the
identification of the actions, representations and identifications (see also section 3.1.3). Firstly, in each
article the three categories will be defined by asking what the article wants to do (action: informing,

36
convincing, legitimizing, etc.), which statements about (education) reality are made (representation)
and how the author of the article is positioning hisself (identification: as journalist, researcher, voice of
government, etc.). Then I will schematize this external relations for each issue of Klasse as a whole
and compare all the issues over fifteen years to throw light on the (possible) evolution36.

Then I will start with the discourse analysis of the issues of Klasse. Based on the results of the text
analysis, I will identify the genres, discourses and styles which are present in Klasse and in this way
investigate the particular order of discourse. The same path will be followed: a discourse analysis of
each article, followed by a synthesis of the genres, discourses and styles in each issue, and finally an
overall comparison between the issues in order to describe the (possible) evolution in the ways of
representing education reality (discourses), the genres of speaking and writing, and the styles used.

The result of these research steps will give a clear answer to my first research question: What is the
magazine Klasse and what is it doing?

4.2. Research phase 2: investigating the conditions of possibility of

Klasse

Like I mentioned earlier, I will use three specific research methods policy document analysis,
interviews and focus groups to complement the results of the first research phase in order to grasp
the present regime of government in education. I will first discuss these three research methods and
then clarify how the order of discourse in Klasse will be interpreted, in order to answer my second
research question.

4.2.1. Policy documents analysis

Analyzing policy documents has to allow me to investigate in a profound way the conditions of
possibility for the emergence of the magazine Klasse at the level of government, as a supplement to
the results of the discourse analysis. For this purpose, I will analyse the official government statemens
of the federal (until 1989) and the Flemish (since 1989)37 government, and the policy declarations of
the Flemish Ministers of education (since 1995). In general, this means that I start my document

36
I am considering to complement this text analysis with a digital analysis of the magazines too, because all the
issues of Klasse are available in pdf-format. I hold out a prospect of the different software packs and their possibilities, so I
do not exclude this possibility when it seems useful for my analysis.
37
Since 1989, the Flemish government is responsible for all education policy matters, excepted the loans, the
retirement payments and the definition of the school-leaving age. To that date, national or federal government have been
responsible for education policy.

37
analysis a little while before the first edition of Klasse (1990). In the second place, the
communication policy plans of the Ministry of Education will be investigated. I aim at describing the
global policy context during the fifteen years of the existence of Klasse, so I will not only focus on
the specific paragraphs about Klasse. After all, I am interested in which governance tasks the
government has been ascribing to itself and to other (education) actors, how government wanted to
relate to the education field and how government spoke and wrote about this education field. Besides
this, we will investigate the global policy programmes that were proposed during these legislatures, in
other words, which (education) problems were identified by government and which answers or
solutions have been suggested. Particular attention will be given to the ideas about communication and
information policy. The policy analysis will be conducted in two phases.

1) Describing governance tasks and governance actors

Dale (1997, 2005) developed a multi-level framework for analysing the distribution of governance
tasks over different governance actors. The idea38 behind this diagram, is that not only the State or
government are governing, but that several governance actors at different governance levels are
accomplishing governance tasks. Dale (1997) identified three governance actors (the State, the market,
the community), three governance tasks (funding, provision and regulation) and three scales of
governance (supra-national, national and subnational). The governance task funding is indicating
who is providing the funding resources for education (e.g. the distinction between private and
public schools) and according to which principles these resources are allocated to the schools. The
regulation task setting out the rules and sanctions for education was traditionally assigned to the
State, but is now distributed to different actors as well, because of tendencies of marketization and
deregulation of education. The task of provision is determined a lot by the framework of regulation
and funding, but can nonetheless be accomplished by different actors. Dale (1997) discusses one key
feature of this governance task, namely whether the provision of education is modelled on an
entitlement-based policy or a market-directed policy.

When these actors and tasks are described in a diagram, based on the policy documents, we get a clear
picture of how government perceives of and relates to the participants in education practice.

38
For more details about Dales view on the relationship between government and the education field, see section
2.2.

38
 Governance tasks
For example:
Regulation Funding Provision Informing

Actors

For example:

State/government

Market

Community

Figure 3: Two-level diagram (based at Dale 1997)

However, I will use Dales two-dimensional diagram (1997) instead of the three-dimensional diagram
(2005). I think this choice is legitimated because we are investigating the Flemish education policy
context of the specific Flemish policy instrument Klasse. Although foreign education policy makers
are interested in the initiative Klasse, or although Flemish education policy is influenced ever more
by the international context, Klasse is to date a typical Flemish initiative39.
Moreover, I will not start with Dales completed diagram for analysing the policy texts, but
strive at identifying the governance actors and tasks myself, based on the Flemish education policy
documents. For example, maybe informing can appear as a new governance task, assigned to one or
more governance actors. Of course, I will keep in mind the different governance actors and tasks Dale
already identified, but instead of checking if these are appearing in our policy documents, I will
generate my own tasks-and-actors-diagram.
In particular, I will analyse the policy documents of each legislation and complete the diagram.
After this, the diagrams of the different legislatures will be compared and I will regard if there have
been shifts in the distribution of governance tasks over governance actors. In this way, we get a
systematic base for the analysis from a governmentality perspective.

2) Analysis of the policy documents from a governmentality perspective

In my research, I want to go beyond describing the governance tasks and actors today. I am interested
in mapping the governmental rationality, governmental technology and subjectivation in the current
regime of government; in other words, an analytics of the conditions of possibility for the existence of
Klasse. For this purpose, I will answer these particular questions:
What does it mean for government today to govern education in a good way?
Which problems are defined for the government of education and how are they legitimated?
39
Moreover, next year a second doctoral research project will start, particularly investigating the influence of Europe
and supra-national organisations on Flemish education policy.

39
 Which knowledge and expertise is seen as necessary for good government?
In which way is education practice made visible and governable in the present regime of
government?
Based on the diagrams with governance tasks and actors, I will answer these questions for each
legislature. Particularly, on the one hand I will focus on the governmental problematics in the relation
between government and the education field, and on the other hand, special attention will be given to
the general communication policy and its rationalizations. After this, I will compare the legislatures
again in order to detect the (possible) evolutions.

4.2.2. Interviews with key informants

In order to complement this document analysis, I will conduct about five interviews with 'key
informants', or people who were involved in the emergence and evolution of Klasse. I would like to
interview the editor in chief (L. Bormans), the communication advisor of the Ministry of education, a
former or current editor, an education policy maker, and maybe one of the former Ministers of
education, a real advocate of the 'new communication policy' and Klasse (L. Van Den Bossche). This
interviews will give me a more profound insight in why Klasse exists and is important.
Semi-structured interviews will be conducted, with some clear questions guiding the interview.
But the interview has to be open enough in structure as well, in order to let the respondents tell their
own stories. In this way, semi-structural interviews are a good method for detecting the sense making
of the respondents (Merriam, 1998). This interviews will be analysed with the usual methods for
qualitatitve data-analysis, in particular encoding of the interviews, an interpretative analysis of each
interview and a comparison between the answers of the different respondents (Kelchtermans, 1994;
Merriam, 1998; Miles & Hubermann, 1994; Yin, 1994). Because I am not striving for extended case
studies of education policy, these interviews are really seen as complementary to the document
analysis; this will be reflected in the depth of the analysis. In the stories of the respondents, most
attention will be given to the rationalizations of the education (and communication) policy choices in
that period. In this way, I can learn more about the conditions of possibility for the existence of
Klasse at the governmental level.

4.2.3. Focus groups

However, Klasse is not only existing due to a need for better communication with the education
field at the side of government. We can only explain the importance and success of Klasse, by
investigating the conditions of possibility at the level of the education field as well. For this purpose, I

40
would like to analyse which experiences the education field had and still has with the magazine
Klasse, and in which way they speak and think about Klasse, theirselves as education practitioners
and education policy. In other words, I hope to learn more about how teachers and principals
subjectivate theirselves today, and how this is possibly influenced by Klasse and the broader
education policy context. Thus, I ask the following subquestions:
How is the education field perceiving Klasse in general? In which way do they think and speak
about Klasse?
How are the readers experiencing the way they are and have been addressed in Klasse? Which
type of teacher or principal is, according to them, appearing in Klasse? How do they evaluate
this picture?
Which relation between government and theirselves is assumed by teachers and principals who are
reading Klasse, and what is, according to them, the place of Klasse in this relation?

Focus groups, with different participants of education practice, seem to be a good way for dealing with
these research questions. Morgan (1996, p.130) defines the method of focus groups as: ...A research
technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. In
this definition we can distinguish three important elements, being data collection, group discussion as
a basis for these data collection, and the active role of the researcher or moderator in the creation of
these discussion.
In general, focus groups are an accurate research method for data collection when the researcher
aims at: ...Providing insights into the sources of complex behaviors and motivations. (Morgan,
1996, p.139). Wilson (1997) confirms this by saying that organizing focus groups is a good method for
elucidating perceptions, attitudes and opinions of respondents. A particular advantage of focus groups
with regard to other research methods, is the group effect; participants have to explain themselves to
the others and ask for more information, through which the whole becomes more than the separate
parts (Morgan, 1996). In this way, the consensus or differences in opinion between the participants
are occuring quickly. Based on her own research experiences, Wilson describes this as follows: In
general, focus group participants took on the role of consultants to each other; by listening, mirroring
back what had been said and generally facilitating each others understanding of the issues, they
performed an educative function. (Wilson, 1997, p.220). Some weaknesses of the method of focus
groups are the important influence of the moderator on the discussion and the large impact of the
participants on the quality of the research data (Morgan, 1996). There can be dominant voices in the
group whereby not all the opinions get a chance and the participants can give socially desired answers
instead of their own opinion (Smithson, 2000). However, these weaknesses can be overcome by a
trained moderator, who can obtain that all the respondents are participating in the discussions.
Morgan (1996) discusses several aspects that are to be considered when one wants to organize
focus groups. These are standardisation of the questions versus varying the questions between the

41
groups; homogenous versus heterogenous groups; how many focus groups will be organised; how
much the moderator will be influencing the discussions; and group size.

In this research phase, I will try to throw light on the conditions of possibility for the emergence of
Klasse at the level of education practice. To collect the rationalizations of the education field about
Klasse and the relation between government and the education field, organizing focus groups seems
to be a good method. Moreover, Smithson (2000) argues that focus groups are an accurate method for
elucidating discourse. Hence, I am going to use the method of focus groups for creating texts (the
transcription of the discussions), which will reflect the discourse of the education field about Klasse
and the relation between government and theirselves.
In my specific focus groups design, based on the research results of the other research steps, I will
take into account the design advices I mentioned. This because, in organizing focus groups, it is very
important not to become obsessed by some rules of thumb which are cited a lot in the literature (like
eight participants, four groups, etc.), but also to take into account the particular objectives and
research questions of your own research (Morgan, 1996). In my design, it will be important to have
both teachers and principals as participants, both younger and older people, and from the different
education organizations, because Devos et al. (2002) showed that teachers and principals are
experiencing Klasse in a different way.

4.2.4. Interpreting the order of discourse in Klasse

In a last phase, I will sumarize how government and the education field seem to be represented in
Klasse, and which rationalizations are made in the magazine about teachers, principals and
government. I am also interested in how in Klasse is spoken about the magazine as a governmental
instrument. For this purpose, and drawing on the order of discourse we found in Klasse, I will ask
some more specific questions:
- Which type of teacher, principal and government has been pictured in Klasse?
- How has the relation between government and the education field been represented in
Klasse?
- How has Klasse rationalized its own steering influence at government and the education
field?
In this way, I can interpret the order of discourse in Klasse from the perspective of studies of
governmentality, focused on the rationalizations made of government, the education field and the
relation between them.

42
4.2.5. Conclusion: How can the magazine Klasse do what it does?

Summarizing, I will use the results of the discourse analysis of Klasse and the results of the three
research methods described document analysis, interviews and focus groups in order to investigate
the conditions of possibility of Klasse at the level of both government and the education field, or the
governmental rationality and subjectivation of education. Now these results can be integrated in one
map of the current governmental regime in education.

4.3. Research phase 3: Mapping the current regime of government

in education and theoretical contribution

In this last part, I return to the four general goals of my study. In the first place, I will give a complete
picture of what Klasse is and how it works.
Secondly, the several research steps have to allow me to make a cartography40 of the regime of
government in education today. Based on the integration of the results of the critical discourse analysis
of Klasse and the investigation of the conditions of possibility of Klasse, I will try to describe how
government and the education field are relating today and are conceiving of each other.
Thirdly, my research aims at showing that the perspective of governmentality studies can be
used for concrete empirical research, if some particular research methods are added. In this way, I
can make a contribution to the governmentality studies in general, by illustrating and clarifying the
usual theoretical concepts based on a bottom up research design.
At last, I will compare the (neoliberal) tendencies formulated in the international literature on the
relationship between government and the education field, with my own analytics of Flemish
government. In particular, some problems described in the international literature will be addressed
and illustrated or invalidated, based on my study of governmentality; this could be governing at a
distance, advanced liberal government, the need of quality, the need of information, the
importance of expertise, how public space is interpreted, the entrepreneurial self, a possible new
phase in the governmentalisation of the State, etc.

40
Foucault used the technical concept of cartography to describe his writing and studies (Simons, 2003). A
cartography of the present means that the present space for thought is mapped, that is, the crossroads and ways which
form the screen of our current thinking. In this cartography, what everybody already knows is made visible. However, in
mapping these evidencies, new configurations can become visible (like a particular regime of government). For more
details, see Simons (2003)

43
 5. Research plan

Research phase 1: What is Klasse and what is it doing? 16 months, June 2007 September
2008

- Critical discourse analysis of the magazine Klasse (14 months)

In this period, I will focus on the content and lay-out analysis of the magazine Klasse, using the
CDA-framework of Fairclough.
- Preparation of the publication of the results of this analysis of Klasse (2 months)

Research phase 2: How can the magazine Klasse do what it does? 15 months, October 2008
November 2009

- Interviews with key-informants (3 months)

To get more background information about the policy context of Klasse, I will conduct interviews
with key informants of the editorial board of Klasse and with policy makers responsible for decisions
about Klasse.
- Policy text analysis: official policy declarations and communication policy plans (4 months)
I will analyse some official policy declarations in order to learn more about the conditions of
possibility of Klasse and governmental rationality. This will happen in two parts: an inventarisation
of the governance tasks and actors using the framework of Dale, and an analysis inspired by the
perspective of governmentality studies. I will especially focus on the rationalization of communication
and information policy and on the ideas about the relation between government and the education
field.
- Analysing education practice: focus groups (4 months)
I will organize some focus groups with teachers and principals about their experiences of the
magazine Klasse, their perspective on the relation between government and the education field and
their ideas about good education policy. In this way, I can learn more about the conditions of
possibility of Klasse in education practice rationality.
- Government and the education field in Klasse: interpretation of the discourse analysis (2
months)
Based on the results of the order of discourse in Klasse, special attention will be given to the way
government and the education field are represented in Klasse and the rationalizations of the
evolution of Klasse.

44
 - Preparation of a publication on the conditions of possibilty of Klasse, at governmental and
education practice level (2 months)

Research phase 3: Integration of the results, theoretical contribution and preparation of the
doctoral dissertation. 10 months, December 2009 September 2010

- Integration of the results and theoretical contribution (4 months)

In this last research phase I will integrate the results of the previous phases in one general answer
about the present relation between government and the education field, the current governmental
regime in education and the role of Klasse in this. Secondly, I will make a theoretical contribution
to the governmentality studies on the one hand and to the international literature on (critical) policy
analysis on the other hand.
- Preparation of the doctoral dissertation and a publication on the integrated results and the
theoretical contribution (6 months)

45
 6. References

Ball, S. (1999). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. In J. Marshall & M. Peters (Eds.).
Education Policy. The International Library of Comparative Public Policy (pp. 3-18). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.

Codd, J.A. (1999). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy documents. In J.
Marshall & M. Peters (Eds.). Education Policy. The International Library of Comparative Public
Policy (pp. 19-31). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Dale, R. (1997). The state and the governance of education: An analysis of the restructuring of the
state-education relationship. In A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown & A. Stuart Wells (Eds.),
Education. Culture, Economy and Society (pp. 273-282). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dale, R. (1999). Specifying globalization effects on national policy: A focus on the mechanisms.
Journal of Education Policy, 14 (1), 1-17.

Dale, R. (2004). Forms of governance, governmentality and the EUs Open Method of Coordination.
In W. Larner & W. Walters (Eds.), Global governmentality: Governing international spaces (pp.174-
194). London: Routledge.

Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative

Education, 41 (2), 117-149.

Dean, M. (1999). Global Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.

C.A. de Kam & J. de Haan (Red.) (1991). Terugtredende overheid. Realiteit of retoriek? Een evaluatie
van de grote operaties. Schoonhoven: Academic Service.

Devos, G., Verhoeven, J.C., Kuhk, A., & Rots, I. (2002) Overheidscommunicatie over onderwijsbeleid
naar het onderwijsveld. Leuven: Garant.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. London:
Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews
and Other Writings 1972-1977 (pp. 109-133). Brighton: Harvester Press.

Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8 (4), 777-795.

Foucault, M. (1984). Polemics, politics and problematizations. An interview with Michel Foucault. In:
P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader (pp. 381-390). New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1988). Practicing criticism (A. Sheridan, Trans.). In L.D. Kritzman (Ed.), Politics,
Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977-1984 (pp.152-158). New York: Routledge.

46
Foucault, M. (1991a). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.). The Foucault
Effect. Studies in Governmentality (pp. 87-104). Londen: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Foucault, M. (1991b). Politics and the study of discourse. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller
(Eds.). The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality (pp. 53-72). Londen: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Foucault, M. (2004). Scurit, territoire, population. Cours au Collge de France. 1977-1978. (Ed. M.
Senellart). Paris: Seuil/Gallimard.

Fuhrman, S.H., & Elmore, R.F. (1995). Ruling Out Rules: The Evolution of Deregulation in State
Education Policy. Unpublished research report, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick. (retrieved from ERIC).

Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: an introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller

(Eds.). The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality (pp. 1-51). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Haahr, J.H. (2004). Open co-ordination as advanced liberal government. Journal of European Public
Policy, 11 (2), 209-230.

Janks, H. (1997). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse: studies in the cultural
politics of education, 18 (3), 49-62.

Klaassen, C. (1996). Education and citizenship in a post-welfare state. Curriculum, 17 (2), 62-73.

Kelchtermans, G. (1994). De professionele ontwikkeling van leerkrachten basisonderwijs vanuit het

biografisch perspectief (Studia Paedagogica 17). Leuven: Universitaire Pers.

Kelchtermans, G. (2004). Effectief en legitiem sturen in onderwijs: een inleiding. In G. Kelchtermans

(Red.), De stuurbaarheid van onderwijs. Tussen kunnen en willen, mogen en moeten (pp. 9-17).
Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.

Larner, W. (2000). Post-Welfare State Governance: Towards a Code of Social and Family
Responsibility. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 7 (2), 244-265.

Larner, W., & Walters, W. (2004). Introduction. Global governmentality: governing international
spaces. In W. Larner & W. Walters (Eds.). Global Governmentality. Governing international Spaces
(pp.2-20). London: Routledge.

Marshall, J., & Peters, M. (1999). Studies in educational policy at the end of the millennium. In J.
Marshall & M. Peters (Eds.). Education Policy. The International Library of Comparative Public
Policy (pp. 19-31). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitatitve research and case study applications in education. San Fransisco:
Jossey- Bass Publishers.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook. Qualitative data analysis (2nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Onderwijs.

Klasse voor Leerkrachten nr.1, januari 1990.
Klasse voor Leerkrachten nr.27, september 1992.
Klasse voor Leerkrachten nr.41, januari 1994.
Klasse voor Leerkrachten nr.67, september 1996.
Klasse voor Leerkrachten nr.69, november 1996.
Klasse voor Leerkrachten nr.71, januari 1997.

47
 Klasse voor Leerkrachten nr.100, december 1999.

Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.

Olssen, M., ONeill, A.M., & Codd, J.A. (2004). Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and
Democracy. London: Sage.

Phillips, L., & Jorgensen, M.W. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage.

Rabinow, P. (1984). Introduction. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader (pp.3-29). New York:
Pantheon Books.

Rose, N. (1996). Governing advanced liberal democracies. In Barry, A., Osborne, T. and Rose, N.
(Eds.). Foucault and Political Reason. Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government
(pp.37-64). London: University College London Press.

Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom. Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the State: problematics of government. The
British Journal of Sociology, 43 (2), 173-205.

Simons, M. (2003). De school in de ban van het leven. Een cartografie van het moderne en actuele
onderwijsdispositief. Ongepubliceerd doctoraatsproefschrift. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculteit
Psychologie en Pedagogische Wetenschappen, Centrum voor Fundamentele Pedagogiek.

Simons, M., & Masschelein, J. (2006). The Learning Society and Governmentality: An introduction.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38 (4), 417-430.

Simons, M. (2007). To be informed: Understanding the role of feedback information for

Flemish/European policy. Journal of Education Policy (in press).

Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3 (2), 103-119.

Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in new times: using critical discourse
analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19 (4), 433-451.

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis.
London: Sage.

Vandenbroucke, F. (2004). Beleidsnota Onderwijs en Vorming 2004-2009. Vandaag kampioen in

wiskunde, morgen ook in gelijke kansen. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
www.ond.vlaanderen.be/beleid/nota/2004-2009.pdf

Van Petegem, P., Devos, G., Mahieu, P., Kim, T.D., & Warmoes, V. (2005). Hoe sterk is mijn school?
Het beleidsvoerend vermogen van Vlaamse scholen. Mechelen: Wolters Plantyn.

Verhoeven, J.C., & Elchardus, M. (2000). Onderwijs, een decennium Vlaamse autonomie. Kapellen:
Pelckmans.

Vlaams Parlement (26/07/1993). Bulletin van Vraag & Antwoord nr.18.

http://jsp.vlaamsparlement.be/docs/bva/1992-1993/va-18-.pdf

48
Verbruggen, M. (2001-2002). Het Europees onderwijsbeleid en de Bolognaverklaring: terug naar af?
Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid, (3), 173-189.

Verhoeven, J.C., Kelchtermans, G., & Michielsen, K. (2004). Internationale sturing in het beleid rond
hoger onderwijs. In G. Kelchtermans (Red.), De stuurbaarheid van onderwijs. Tussen kunnen en
willen, mogen en moeten (pp. 39-56). Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.

Wielemans (1996-1997). Onderwijsbeleid tussen sociaal-democratie en neoliberalisme,

Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en Onderwijsbeleid, 7 (5), 347-354.

Wilson, V. (1997). Focus groups: A useful qualitative method for educational research?
British Educational Research Journal, 23 (2), 209- 224.

www.klasse.be (all documents retrieved on May 7th, 2007)

www.ond.vlaanderen.be (all documents retrieved on May 7th, 2007)

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

49