1. WP 3 Session 1.1 Scientific training Policy Travel – Conceptual grammar for analysing policy movement

2. Approaches of policy as a subject, and policy analysis as a field of research Similarities Based on a changed context of policy making, all texts differentiate themselves from the – “Orthodox literature” (Peck & Theodore, 2010; Dale & Robertson, 2012) – “Neopositivist /empirist approach” (Hodgson & Irwing, 2007) – ‘Objective rational model of research” (Hodgson & Irwing, 2007)

3. Differences While Peck (2011), Peck & Theodore (2010) and Dale & Robertson (2012) address “policy transfer/movement/…” from a human geography or political geography or globalization point of view, Hodgson & Irving (2007) and Jenkins (2007) look more generally at policy and policy studies and meaning of policy and policy as meaning respectively. Understanding of policy as subject – Hodgson & Irving (2007) see policy as “ways of explaining and validating action rather than simply a product of organizational behavior or governance” – Jenkins (2007) defines policy as “processes of representation” (elements of “comprehensive ideal typical model”) Approaches of policy as a subject, and policy analysis as a field of research

4. Differences Understanding of policy analysis as a field of research – Peck (2011) and Peck and Theodore (2010) see policy formation and transformation as “(socially) constructed processes, as fields of power. Policy transfer is not reduced to a more-or-less efficient process for transmitting best (or better) practices, but is visualized as a field of adaptive connections, deeply structured by enduring power relations and shifting ideological alignments. – Dale & Robertson (2012) on the other hand use the critical grammar of educational policy movements, which is based on the critical political economy to point at the relational, dialectical and co-constitutive nature of educational policy movements – Hodgson & Irving (2007) interest in cross-disciplinarity – Jenkins (2007) sees policy process and politics as “(re)producing shared meanings that are at the heart of the culture and cultural differences” Talks about policy and politics “symbolic politics” (not acting as acting, regulation being counterproductive)

5. AuthorParadigmQuestions ↔ to the positivist or postpositivist paradigm “more-or-less efficient process for transmitting best (or better) practices” (Peck & Theodore, 2010)  “ ‘How does Bologna work?’ and  ‘What are its domestic effects?’ “ (Dale & Robertson, 2012) Peck (2011) and Peck and Theodore (2010) Social constructivism? Postmodernism ?  “explore the ways in which the restructuring of policy regimes and the mobility of fast policy fixes are jointly constituted” Dale & Robertson (2012) Critical realism  “ ‘What work does it do, and for whom?’, and  ‘what is the framework through which it realises this’? “  “what kind of work does ‘policy transfer’ do in constituting social relations and in realising powerful political projects?” Hodgson & Irving (2007) Postmodernism “Our interest in cross-disciplinarity is simply  in terms of encounters between the abstract and the applied,  in the importance of the generation of questions that these encounters entail, and  in the dialogue that is opened up within this process. “ Jenkins (2007)Postmodernist/post- structuralist?  “what is policy, what does it do, what does it mean?” “defamiliarisation of the familiar”

6. To conclude There is a need to define policy Question “how come some policies work and others are easily forgotten” Notes The selection of readings might be partial ‘Evolution’ of different paradigms