Policy writers conceptions of language and communication in one higher education institution

Carey Philpott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Ball argues that ‘policy authors do make concerted efforts to assert control [of readings] by the means at their disposal … [and that] we need to understand those efforts’ (Ball, 1994, p. 16). Efforts by policy authors to control readings are influenced by their own assumptions about the nature of language, texts and communication. This paper explores the models of language and communication held by policy writers within one HEI and how these influence the strategies they use to try to control interpretations of policy texts. The dominant conceptions of language and communication that emerge underestimate the active work of the ‘receivers’ of policy texts and the need for shared understanding of the social situation in constructing meanings. This leads to a misguided attempt to reduce the ‘implementation gap’ by modifying formal features of policy texts.
LanguageEnglish
JournalDiscourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education
Early online date1 Oct 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

writer
communication
language
education
social situation
recipient
interpretation

Keywords

  • policy
  • language
  • toolmakers paradigm
  • members resources
  • representational speech
  • implementation gap

Cite this

@article{ecfc505d88a94e16b8ad331c0a86a045,
title = "Policy writers conceptions of language and communication in one higher education institution",
abstract = "Ball argues that ‘policy authors do make concerted efforts to assert control [of readings] by the means at their disposal … [and that] we need to understand those efforts’ (Ball, 1994, p. 16). Efforts by policy authors to control readings are influenced by their own assumptions about the nature of language, texts and communication. This paper explores the models of language and communication held by policy writers within one HEI and how these influence the strategies they use to try to control interpretations of policy texts. The dominant conceptions of language and communication that emerge underestimate the active work of the ‘receivers’ of policy texts and the need for shared understanding of the social situation in constructing meanings. This leads to a misguided attempt to reduce the ‘implementation gap’ by modifying formal features of policy texts.",
keywords = "policy, language, toolmakers paradigm, members resources, representational speech, implementation gap",
author = "Carey Philpott",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1080/01596306.2013.728364",
language = "English",
journal = "Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education",
issn = "0159-6306",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Policy writers conceptions of language and communication in one higher education institution

AU - Philpott, Carey

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Ball argues that ‘policy authors do make concerted efforts to assert control [of readings] by the means at their disposal … [and that] we need to understand those efforts’ (Ball, 1994, p. 16). Efforts by policy authors to control readings are influenced by their own assumptions about the nature of language, texts and communication. This paper explores the models of language and communication held by policy writers within one HEI and how these influence the strategies they use to try to control interpretations of policy texts. The dominant conceptions of language and communication that emerge underestimate the active work of the ‘receivers’ of policy texts and the need for shared understanding of the social situation in constructing meanings. This leads to a misguided attempt to reduce the ‘implementation gap’ by modifying formal features of policy texts.

AB - Ball argues that ‘policy authors do make concerted efforts to assert control [of readings] by the means at their disposal … [and that] we need to understand those efforts’ (Ball, 1994, p. 16). Efforts by policy authors to control readings are influenced by their own assumptions about the nature of language, texts and communication. This paper explores the models of language and communication held by policy writers within one HEI and how these influence the strategies they use to try to control interpretations of policy texts. The dominant conceptions of language and communication that emerge underestimate the active work of the ‘receivers’ of policy texts and the need for shared understanding of the social situation in constructing meanings. This leads to a misguided attempt to reduce the ‘implementation gap’ by modifying formal features of policy texts.

KW - policy

KW - language

KW - toolmakers paradigm

KW - members resources

KW - representational speech

KW - implementation gap

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886942324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/01596306.2013.728364

DO - 10.1080/01596306.2013.728364

M3 - Article

JO - Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

T2 - Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

JF - Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

SN - 0159-6306

ER -