L EGISLACIÓN AFECTADA POR LA MEDIDA Normativa de CC.AA afectada:

CDA is a blend of both critical theory and poststructuralist epistemologies. Its researchers take an active role in understanding, exposing, and, thereby, resisting forms of power abuse and social inequality reshaped through policy texts and discourses. Analysing power is a major concern because “power comes from privileged access to social resources such as education, knowledge and wealth, which provides authority, status and influence to those who gain this access and enables them to dominate, coerce and control subordinate groups” (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 24).

The CDA model overcomes Foucault’s alleged neglect of texts and is relevant for critical policy analysis for four main reasons (Taylor, 1997, 2004). First, it is multidimensional with three interrelated dimensions of texts, social practice, and discursive practices, each relevant to analyse power, hegemony, and ideologies produced and reproduced through marketisation policy texts and discourses. Second, it is multifunctional for having three functions, useful to analyse how marketisation policy texts and discourses construct and constitute teachers’ and students’ knowledge and beliefs, social relations, and social identities. Third, it is historical and focuses on intertextuality to examine how marketisation policy texts are constructed in different, but related, historical and social contexts. Fourth, CDA is critical for exposing the

hidden power and ideological relations reproduced through marketisation policy texts and marketised textbooks as cultural texts (Fairclough, 1992).

Furthermore, I found the CDA model (Fairclough, 1989, 1992, 1995, 2001; Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999) useful for this study because it examines the political struggles for marketisation policy interpretation focusing on variation, changes, and

struggles across and within institutions. That is, schools and teachers’ work practices

varied with time and contexts because of their struggle to respond to the challenges of marketisation policy reform and other local, national, and global sociocultural and political forces reshaping their work. Fairclough (1992) argues that both critical linguistics and poststructuralists have not adequately examined what he calls the

“duality of discourse” (p. 36), referring to “the way in which discourse contributes both

to the reproduction and to the transformation of societies.” (p. 36). Important to this

reproduction and transformation are the ideologies and social practices. For Fairclough (1989, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2010), these can be critically analysed through his three- dimensional CDA model, consisting of three interrelated dimensions and procedural

stages for analysis. The dimensions are “text, discursive practice, and social practice”

(Fairclough, 1992, p. 62). Below, I discuss each dimension, respective stages, their purposes, and usefulness in analysing the effects of marketisation policy reforms on

teachers’ work.

3.3.3.1.1 Marketisation policy discourses as ‘texts’

The first CDA dimension (Fairclough, 1992) considers, ‘discourse as texts’, and the corresponding ‘description’ stage is concerned with linguistic and semiotic texts

produced, distributed, and consumed in the policy process and teachers’ work

interactive communication. These texts are analysed for their forms and meanings to discern embedded social power relations, hegemony, ideologies, beliefs, and

perceptions that define the third dimension of “discourse as social practice” (p. 86). Fairclough argues that text analysis focuses on four main aspects: ‘vocabulary’, ‘grammar’, ‘cohesion’, and ‘text structure’. Description focuses more on what Fairclough (2001) calls discourse participants’ ‘experiential’, ‘relational’, and

‘expressive’ values representing “contents and knowledge and beliefs”, ‘social relationships’, and “subjects and social identities” (p. 93), respectively.

3.3.3.1.2 Marketisation policy discourses as ‘discursive practices’

Fairclough’s (1992) second dimension is “discourse as discursive practice” (p. 73) and deals with the processes of text production, distribution, and consumption. This dimension with its procedural stage of ‘interpretation’ was relevant in my study because

it informed how schools’ marketisation policy and curricular texts and discourses

positions teachers and students. Fairclough (2001) suggests important questions for analysing subject positions through the institutional and “situational context and

discourse type” (p. 123). These questions focus on participants’ involvement in the

policy and the curriculum, and how the kind of social power relations, “social distance

and so forth, are set up and enacted in the situation.” (p. 124). The questions determine key elements of discourse that “embod[y] certain constraints on contents, subjects and relations, or on the experiential, expressive and relational meanings which it makes

possible” (p. 124). The first question, ‘What is going on?’determines the ‘contents’; the second, ‘Who is involved?’ determines ‘subjects’; and the third, ‘In what relation?’ determines the nature of the relationships amongst social subjects. Moreover, intertextuality is central in the discursive practice dimension and was useful in analysing the discursive practices of school institutions, teachers, and students in the classroom and their relations with the wider social practices (Fairclough, 1992). This helped me to identify how power and ideologies reproduced through marketisation discourses structured those practices and their ultimate production and reproduction

through teachers’ work practices.

3.3.3.1.3 Marketisation policy discourses as ‘social practice’

The third dimension, “discourse as social practice” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 66) assumes that in the social world, individuals, groups, and institutions are involved in political, social, cultural, and economic activities reshaped by power and hegemonic relations produced and reproduced through discourses. This dimension corresponds to the CDA procedural stage of ‘explanation’ which deals with the ways in which discourse produces and is reproduced by social structures of power relations and social struggles, which may either sustain or change these relations and struggles (Fairclough, 2001). Explanation considers discursive struggles in ‘situational’, ‘institutional’, and ‘societal’ levels of social organisation.

Focusing on the ‘situational level’ implies understanding how marketisation policy texts and discourses were shaped and reshaped by the situational contexts of policy in terms of both effects and determinants. A focus on the ‘institutional level’ delineates how marketisation policy texts and discourses determine and were determined by the institutional (schools and subject departments) social and political practices, and how these reproduce social structures. Moreover, a focus on the ‘societal level’ attends to wider social structures of power relations, ideologies, knowledge, beliefs, and identities in and through marketisation policy texts and discourses. According to Fairclough (2001), this can be understood by integrating the stages of interpretation and explanation.

Thus, while I analysed discursive practices for power relations and ideologies in the processes of text production, distribution, and consumption through text analysis and intertextuality, I analysed social practices for ideology and, more importantly, how they were employed by the dominant groups to produce and reproduce sociocultural, political, and economic hegemony. Based on Gramsci, Fairclough (1992) argued that

hegemony “within particular organizations and institutions and at a societal level are produced, reproduced, contested and transformed in discourse.” (pp. 9-10).

Fairclough (1992) argues that discourse has three creative and constitutive

effects that I applied to understand teachers’ work culture and history in the context of

marketisation policy reforms: the construction of social identities and subject positions, social relationships, and systems of knowledge and beliefs. Fairclough states:

Discourse contributes to the constitution of all those dimensions of social structure which directly or indirectly shape and constrain it: its own norms and conventions, as well as the relations, identities and institutions which lie behind them. Discourse is a practice not just of representing the world, but of signifying the world, constituting and constructing the world in meaning. (p. 64).

Despite its wider use in social and education policy research, CDA was criticised for the probability of bias in text analyses that may lead to subjective findings (Blommaert, 2004; Paltridge, 2006, 2012; Paltridge & Burton, 2000). Blommaert (2004) constructs three major criticisms of CDA. First, it relies heavily on language and, where linguistic texts are lacking, the analysis would be constrained. Second, CDA is restricted because it was developed based on social and cultural changes taking place in particular social

contexts, mainly the developed world. Third, CDA is limited “to a particular time frame” (p. 37). The first criticism is beyond my knowledge. For the second, as this

study demonstrates, over the past two decades, school curriculum texts in Tanzania contained marketisation policy texts and discourses, such as advertising. The above criticism cannot rule out the fact that capitalism has integrated all societies, schools, teachers, and students through globalisation. As it will be clear later, many marketised textbooks I analysed in this study were full of advertising texts, thus reshaping developing societies into a capitalist world as consumers of capitalist products.

The third criticism about CDA putting less attention on the analysis of

“historical developments” (Blommaert, 2004, p. 37) in policy process and practices is simply a partial criticism. This is because the ‘intertextuality’ concept attends to both past and present texts and practices, which signify the historical elements of policy practices. The historicity of discourses is further emphasised by CDA principles, that discourses are ‘historical’ (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997) and, for this study, history can be read from the policy texts and MCR, which indicate the time for their production and distribution. Moreover, to account for this weakness, as discussed later, I draw on

Foucault’s (1980) genealogical and archaeological methods.

However, these criticisms do not make CDA irrelevant as CDA is still useful for social research. As Fairclough (2003) himself acknowledges, CDA is not without its limitations because such textual analysis is limited and needs to be “used in conjunction

with other methods of analysis” (p. 15). For Fairclough, analysts need to interpret texts

“and more generally at how texts practically figure in particular areas of social life” (p.

15). This involves linking the micro and macro levels, and analysing social practices that are consistent with Bernstein’s (1990, 1996, 2000) theory of pedagogic discourse (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).

Therefore, where CDA falls short in this study, such as failure to differentiate

curriculum content and classroom pedagogic discourses, Bernstein’s (1990, 1996, 2000) theory helped because it recognises the difference between the message and its carrier. It also distinguishes “between that which is relayed, the verbal message, and the relay,

the structures through which the verbal message is realised” (Clark, 2005, p. 34). Below, I discuss Bernstein’s theory and how I combined it with Fairclough’s CDA model.