The most popular methodological approach in the ten articles is discourse
analysis, albeit not necessarily using exactly the same techniques; indeed some
articles do not spell out the specific analytical technique in much detail. Other
articles tend towards providing‘accounts’drawing on documentary analysis, but
also containing significant experiential knowledge as well. Only two of the ten
articles use empirical data beyond policy and research documentary evidence:
Reeves and Drew (2012) analysing various texts relating to the development of
their Chartered Teacher course, including policy and course documentation,
teaching materials, students’assignments and evaluative feedback, and Watson and
Fox (2015) analysing interview transcripts. The articles also revealed use of a
comparative approach—both geographical (i.e. comparing Scotland and England)
and historical.
Some of the articles made explicit mention of theoretical frames in which the
work was situated, while others made no such statements. Across all ten, perhaps
with the exception of Reeves and Drew (2012), the theoretical frame was seen as
less important than the substantive discussion of policy itself. Thus, the building of
a body of policy study theory does not seem to be a core purpose of the work
analysed here, perhaps attributable to the individualised, small-scale and
self-motivated nature of the studies, none of which were drawn from wider, theo-
retically driven research projects. This situation illustrates longstanding criticisms
of UK education research more generally (Tooley and Darby 1998 ).
Some of the authors do not make explicit any particular intended impact of the
article, rather providing accounts of policy development. Where intended impact of
the article is stated, or even implied, in the majority of cases the intention is to
promote critical engagement with the policy development under investigation, and
to promote a more critical stance on policy; a traditional role of the academy. For
example, Humes (2014) argues for‘greater intellectual freedom in defining what
counts as legitimate professional learning’(p. 54), while Kennedy and Doherty
(2012)‘conclude with a plea that as the rush to attend to the more tangible,
operational aspects of the proposed reform [in the Donaldson Report] gather
momentum, such a panacea approach to solving perceived problems needs to be
critiqued openly’(p. 835). Similarly, Reeves and Drew (2012) conclude by sug-
gesting that‘a discursive analysis of how a centrally mandated initiative is trans-
mitted can help to promote an understanding of the complexities of this process and
increase critical awareness of the issues at stake for those involved’(p. 711).
The majority of the articles reviewed are wholly or principally inward referenced
in that they consider the Scottish context only. Hulme and Menter (2011) consider
Scotland and England from a comparative perspective, but with little reference
beyond the UK, while Reeves and Drew (2012) and Watson and Fox (2015) both
use the Scottish‘case’to explore and illustrate wider global policy phenomenon. It
appears, then, from this small sample of work, that the authors are committed to
providing detailed accounts of the Scottish teacher education policy context, despite
systemic pressure to publish‘international’research.
38 Researching Teacher Education Policy: A Case Study from Scotland 577