Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of disciplines. This section outlines how the discursive approach was applied in this study and the type of discourse analysis this study is linked to. This chapter reports on an investigation of the motives behind taking advantage of discursive analysis. As written earlier, epistemologically this study is linked to the tradition of social constructivism, which is a sociological theory of knowledge. Social constructivism focuses on the artifacts that are created through the social interactions and examines the construction of social reality and meanings through interaction. The ontological premises of this study rely on understanding that social interaction, social situations and social structures can only influence text and talk through people’s interpretations of such social environments. Beginning with a brief introduction of the discursive approaches used in higher education studies generally, I have followed up by, explaining the options for deploying discursive analysis in studies about higher education policy. After that, I position this work in the field of higher education policy studies and explain decisions made in this study regarding data analysis.
Discourse studies can be divided into two approaches: the formalist approach and the functional approach (Saarinen 2007, 14–17). The formalist approach is interested in the structure of the language and the functionalist approach focuses on the use of language. The formalist approach sees discourse as an abstract structural system, in which discourses are studied as independent linguistic products (textual analysis) or mental processes (congnitive view). The functionalist approach, in turn, includes two approaches: the interactional and constructivist views of discourse. The interactional approach looks at discourse in interactional situations. Instead, the constructivist view looks outside the interactional situations and sees discourse as part of the wider societal context in which it is used. The division into functionalist and formalist approaches is not definitive as in discourse analysis, linguistic forms are part of the context (Fairclough 1995, 188). The division explains the focus, relationship between forms and function, and how language is interpreted.
The discursive approach used in this study is linked to the functional approach, as I see that the ‘text’ and ‘discourses’ that come from the empirical data are produced for a purpose and used in a wider social situation and context. The critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach has inspired the empirical work in this study, although the study does not always follow the principles of this tradition. Critical discourse analyses include a set of theories and methods for the examination of discourse and social life. It grew out of critical linguistics in the
1970s. Fairclough coined the term ‘critical discursive analysis’ in his book Language and Power (1979).
Since its inception, CDA has been practiced globally and developed into well- formed traditions including dialectical–relational, socio-cognitive, discourse historical, critical metaphor, Foucauldian, ethnographic, narrative-based, and interventionist (Rogers & et al. 2016, 1193). Depending on ontological premises of the research, several approaches of CDA have been applied. For example, the socio-cognitive approach in critical discourse studies (CDS) is more problem- oriented than discipline-oriented and requires a multidisciplinary approach. These pieces of research are based on the belief that discourse can only influence social interaction and social structures through knowledge, attitudes, ideologies and shared understanding of reality. Goals, data and theories used in research are chosen to study discursive (re)production of power abuse and resistance against such domination (van Dijk 2015).
The power abuse and questions related to the resistance to domination of power structures are also interesting from the viewpoint of this study, but those topics are not the main interest of this analysis. At this point, I limited myself to study of the discursive construction of domestication of travelling reforms at the general level, meaning that power relations and ideological dominance are not the focus of this study. I wanted to reconstruct the national and international policy interface instead of focusing on the national powerplay between different actors and institutions in the national field of higher education. I employed the understanding of critical discourse analysis in a way that the text is part of a larger whole, something that is reflected in the existing power relations, ideologies and practices.
The CDA aims to understand the power relations built and maintained with discourses (see Taylor 2004), which is also of interest in this study. By analyzing the highest and lowest levels of administrative hierarchy with discourse analysis it is possible to uncover hidden logic that can influence the spread of the international reforms (Alasuutari & Alasuutari 2012; McKennan 2004, 15). Merging systemic functional linguistics with critical social theory and historical analysis became the defining characteristic of CDA. Central concepts in CDA have included power, ideology and discourse.
The aim of the analysis is to uncover hidden logic that can influence a view of the world. McKennan (2004, 15) points out how critical discourse analysis will not only see the texts linguistically, but the nature of the approach is also sociological, based on the epistemological and ontological setups. According to Saarinen (2007, 31) the critical discourse analysis has theoretical, methodological, political and historical implications. First, the theoretical implications relate to the fact that text constitutes one important form of social action, at both macro and micro levels. Second, the text provides a major source of evidence for grounding claims about social relations, processes and structures. Third, the political
implication of critical discourse analysis relates specifically to social science with a critical objective. Fourth, the historical implication helps us to see social change and analyzing the text can provide evidence of ongoing processes. Text is a sensitive barometer of social processes, movements and diversity. Historical implications helped me to see the connection between discursive institutionalism and critical discursive analyses with the concept of change.
McKennan (2004, 12) suggests that language and reality have a reciprocal relationship with each other. Seeing and experiencing things is structured in a certain way. All communities and societies have their own definitions of the most important and relevant texts, as well as their own highlighted and silenced discourses. What texts are read in different contexts is dependent on both the community and society. The reality regulates language and the language regulates reality. Every discourse has its history. Without understanding and knowing the history, it is impossible to identify and interpret discourses (McKennan 2004, 15). Discourses are regularly formed in conformity with the importance of differentiating systems that are not static but are built and moving within the social prac-tices. By differentiating, each element builds on our relationship with other parts of the system. One discourse might be undermining the role of the other discourse and may even suppress the different discourses as a wrong kind of truth.
Rather than copying for an extreme, idealistic view of critical discourse analysis, I turned towards the moderate approach of critical discourse analysis, which I simply described as a discursive approach. The principles of CDA emerge from the idea that language plays an integral part of constructing the world and discourses are seen as an instrument of power. In that understanding, the policy is seen as a language and it is possible to overlook some of the physical structures that frame the operational environment for higher education systems. Even though the textual analysis concentrates on text and discourse, policies also include actions which are not executed verbally. For example, funding allocated to universities is also a result of political action. Consequently, when employing the discursive approach for analyzing the data, I followed Saarinen’s (2011, 22–23) understanding for studying higher education policies:
“The text may create a reality, but that reality needs to be reflected against the reality of political action such as funding, decisions, legislation, and operationalizations of policies.”
This means that policy discourses are not only rhetorical and textual interventions but also interventions into policy practices (Ball 1993, 12). In this discursive approach, policy discourse is a social phenomenon, which also has physical and structural limitations and opportunities that comes from the structures of higher education.
4 HIGHER EDUCATION OF KYRGYZSTAN
The history of higher education in Kyrgyzstan can be interpreted as the struggle between an international mission and national intentions. In the context of Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan has been comparatively openly involved in international cooperation in the field of education. Kyrgyzstan is one of the Central Asian countries that has eagerly adopted ‘travelling policies’, such as quality and evaluation reforms, policy recommendations and international agreements on education (like the Bologna Process). Kyrgyzstan has been a fruitful destination in which to examine the localization of international influences, and this factor has inspired many scholars. Those studies have demonstrated that reforms that are considered to be international are attractive to policymakers in post-Soviet republics of Central Asia, at least rhetorically (Steiner-Khamsi 2008, Silova 2011).
Education is an area in which the European Union and the Central Asian countries have voiced a strong common interest in creating common practices and programs. European education standards, such as the Bologna Process, have offered Kyrgyzstan the opportunity to participate in an international educational community and thereby strengthen its position in the field of global higher education. Above all, the relatively unproblematic nature of education compared with other possible areas of cooperation such as trade policy, energy or security policy, has offered the EU the opportunity to participate in Central Asia in a way that is ac-ceptable to the autocratic governments of the countries in the region.
The systematic higher education system was established during the Soviet era. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were no universities in Kyrgyzstan and just under four percent of the adult population could read. (Sievers, 2003.) Although Soviet era higher education has been criticized for the elite, favoring the nomenclature (Melin 2006, 240–241), higher education gave young people in Kyrgyzstan more opportunities. (Reeves 2005, 10–11.) Some scholars have even argued that education was one of the sectors that benefited the country most during the Soviet years and local people shared this understanding (Reeves 2005).
Chenkseliani and Silova (2018, 9) wrote that the history of education can be divided in two opposite missions. The first mission tried to maintain the traditions, knowledge, beliefs, structures and institutions, and the other is tried to transform it. The struggle between these two dynamics was highly pronounced during the post-socialist transformation. However, most of the scholars had been interested to examine transformation, rather than investigating the resistance for change. Kyrgyzstan has been an interesting case study for examining borrowing and lending of travelling reforms in the post-Soviet space. Many reforms occurred with international cooperation and external recommendations. It is even possible
to argue that many reforms concerning education would not have taken place without an international presence. Thus, there has also been interest from outside the country to investigate the transformation process and adaptation of global education reforms. Several earlier studies of higher education of Kyrgyzstan had concentrated on studying the transformation and adaptation of certain reforms (Merrill, 2016; 2012; DeYoung 2011; Shamatov 2010 etc.).
Concurrently, the national education system and local practices have shown considerable path dependency. Despite the implemented reforms, practices seem to be unchangeable. Chankseliani (2017) has noted that there have been remarkably few studies focusing on the resistance to change. The influence of the capitalist market economy is visible in the field of education as the economic and political changes have had a significant impact on the transformation of post- socialist education. Chankseliani and Silova (2018, 10) argue that:
“The purposes of education have been (re)conceptualized with the arrival of the capitalist market economy and the departure from the exclusive focus on the needs of the communist state. While the economic and political purposes of education continue to be highly relevant, the social and moral purposes that used to be the core of the Soviet system of education have become less visible.”
The political and economic purposes are undeniably important for higher education transformation; the social, moral and ideological groundings of the education institutions should not be ignored.
This chapter investigates the higher education system in Kyrgyzstan. The chapter begins by presenting an overview of the country of Kyrgyzstan (4.1) and the formation of the higher education system (4.2). In 4.3 I introduce how the approach to domestication fits in to study Kyrgyzstan.