Clasificación de las especies de peces y cangrejos:

4.4.1. Analysis of Documents

According to Prior (2008), most analysis of documents is focused on what is ‘in’ the document. However, in addition to what is in the document, she also identifies three other main ways of analysing documents: the archaeological approach, which focuses on how the document came into being; how the documents are used by human actors for purposeful ends; and how documents function in and impact on structures or patterns of social interaction and organisation (cf. Ibid). For my research, I looked primarily at how the SDG4 text came into being, as well as its content. I also touch on its implications (i.e. translation down and/or implementation of SDG4 at national level). In a similar vein to the archaeological approach described by Prior (ibid), Bowen (2009) notes that looking at different drafts of a document can provide valuable information and track changes. This was important for my research, in looking back over the language used in earlier proposals for how SDG4 should be framed. As discussed in Chapter 6, this led to an understanding of when and where some of the core language in the final text of SDG4 originates, recognising that even small and subtle changes in a text can reflect substantive implications (Yin, 1994 cited in ibid).

Analysing documents has different stages, including a review of the content, but Silverman (2000, cited in Bowen, 2009) highlights the need not to undermine the interpretative aspect in doing. I understand this to mean that it is not just a question of words and their frequency but how they are used and what meaning can be

interpreted. Bowen (ibid), suggests that document analysis occurs in different stages and “involves skimming (superficial examination), reading (thorough examination), and

interpretation” (Ibid, p. 32.) This leads to thematic analysis whereby patterns emerge.

This was the type of iterative process I followed when analysing key documents for my research and it allowed me to engage more fully and critically with the text (I followed a similar patter with my interview recordings and transcripts – see below). In my case, how I read the text was also shaped by its centrality in my analysis – for example, my analysis of supplementary texts differed to my analysis of the final text of SDG4 itself, the latter of which was a much more detailed line by line analysis.

In analysing the primary text of my research (i.e. SDG4) I undertook discourse analysis. There are differing forms of discourse analysis, including political, critical and rhetorical discourse analysis and also interpretive policy analysis (Glynos, Howarth, Norval and Speed, 2009). While there are multiple understandings of the word discourse and different schools of discourse analysis, what they share is a common concern for analysing the construction of meaning by subjects. For educational research, discourse analysis offers a means by which to interrogate “the ways in which people make

meaning in education” (Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hui and Joseph 2005, p.

366).

In line with my overall methodological stance I applied a critical lens, and as such the research falls within what is known as critical discourse analysis (CDA). CDA is relevant for my research because it views language “as a cultural tool [that] mediates

relationships of power and privilege in social interactions, institutions, and bodies of knowledge” (Rogers et al., 2005, p. 367). In CDA, language is seen as a social practice of

power whereby discourse both reflects and constructs the social world (Ibid). CDA aims to go beyond a merely descriptive process to examine the social structures and social interactions that have informed and created the discourse(s), bringing together a micro and macro analysis. Fairclough (1989) offers a framework for analysing discourse that includes three dimensions of analysis: the analysis of texts (spoken or written), analysis of the processes of text production and of discursive practice. In analysing the final text of SDG4, I was cognisant of that “each of these dimensions requires a different kind of

analysis: 1. text analysis (description); 2. processing analysis (interpretation); 3. social analysis (explanation)” (Janks, 1997, p. 329). However, Breeze (2011) notes that CDA is

not a “unitary, homogeneous entity,” (ibid, p. 494). She offers a view that CDA analysis has:

A more or less political concern with the workings of ideology and power in society; and a specific interest in the way language contributes to,

perpetuates and reveals these workings. Thus, the more explicit definitions all emphasise the relationship between language (text, discourse) and power (political struggle, inequality, dominance) (Ibid, p.495).

I acknowledge the critiques of CDA as a method for analysis (cf. Breeze, 2011), including that CDA is defined by its political aims and that as such the analysis will reflect this (Ibid). This does not necessarily imply the critical reading is therefore false, however - it simply makes the political aspects and reading of the text explicit, whereas policy is often portrayed as neutral. Another criticism is that CDA moves too quickly to interpretations, requiring the researcher to do justice to the text to ensure their interpretations are well grounded (Ibid). In my view, this can be the case for any

research, not just CDA. Nonetheless, based on my understanding of the premise of CDA I found increased confidence to delve into the text in a deeper way – in a way that was different to how I might read a policy text for work – and believe there is merit in the fundamental intentions of CDA. Breeze (ibid) does make an interesting point that in CDA’s efforts to highlight how “ideology works though discourse to maintain unequal power structures [ . . . ] this work has been overwhelming negative” (Ibid, p. 521). She argues it suggest a rather deterministic view of society and makes a plea for CDA to explore positive changes. While I do not necessarily agree that CDA always leads to a negative deterministic perception of society, I am aware that in my analysis of SDG4 I am highlighting the negative (this is particularly the case in chapter 6) rather than the positive. Despite my critical analysis, I still welcome the existence of SDG4 and hope it will spur governments and their partners to respect, protect and fulfil the universal right to quality education.

For the interview transcripts I used a similar technique as I had applied to the secondary/supplementary document analysis using the stages described by Bowen (2009) above. However, the processes are slightly different, as the act of transcribing each interview enabled me to engage with the data in a different way than simply reading a text. It gave me the opportunity to listen in detail, and to reflect on the interview process, and I listened to the interviews more than once even after

transcription. I was keen to see what themes emerged on re-listening and re-reading the interviews and the transcripts, and to a degree the notes I took during the interview (although these were less systematic and very varied in detail and length). In doing so, patterns – or codes – emerged. This helped me become familiar with their content. I then adopted what might be described as a ‘coding’ approach. I chose to do this ‘manually’ (so to speak) rather than use any computer programming software (such as NVivo)15 _{to analyse and code my data. However, it was also important to acknowledge}

that the interview questions themselves, to a degree, established themes. I reviewed the emerging themes in relation to the supplementary texts and what was known about the processes to build a picture of how SDG4 came into being, using the archaeological approach Prior (2008) refers to (that I described in the previous section) to inform my reading and critical analysis of the final SDG4 text. In analysing the interview data, I sought to treat it systematically and respectfully (to hold onto the meaning the

interviewee had ascribed it). I recognise, however, that ultimately an objective reading was not possible as “[d]ifferent analysts focus on different aspects of data, interpret

things differently, and identify different meanings. Also, different analysts arrive at different conclusions even about the same piece of data.” (Corbin and Strass 2008)

The table below shows which data sets were the main source of data for my specific questions.

Table 2. Data set used for specific research questions Research Sub-Questions Main data set for

analysis

Additional data set for analysis

RQ1: How was SDG4 formed? o Interviews o Secondary documentation o SDG4 final text RQ2: How is education conceptualised in SDG4? o CDA of SDG4 final text o Secondary documentation o Interviews