Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Interview with Stephen J. Ball: a dialogue about social justice, research and education policy

IMAGES & WORDS

Interview with Stephen J. Ball: a dialogue about social justice, research and education policy

Jefferson MainardesI;Maria Inês MarcondesII

IPhD in Education. Lecturer in Education Policy at the Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (uepg - Brazil). E-mail: jefferson.m@uol.com.br

IIDoutora em Educação. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (puc-rio - Brazil). E-mail: mim@puc-rio.br

Stephen J. Ball is a Karl Mannheim Professor of Sociology of Education at the Institute of Education - University of London. He is one of the most eminent scholars in the field of education policy. He provides interesting intellectual resources for understanding how education policy is produced, what it seeks to do and what its effects are. Since the 1980's he has been publishing books and papers on different subjects, e.g. the use of sociological theories and methods to analyse policy processes and outcomes; the effects and consequences of the education market in a variety of respects including: the impact of competition on provider behaviour; the class strategies of educational choosers; the participation of private capital in education service delivery and education policy; and the impact of 'performativity' on academic and social life. These topics, in general, are interrelated with social justice, power, social inequalities, social class and discourse. In general, Stephen Ball's work presents a deconstructionist and critical perspective and is strongly related to the macro-social context. The methodological framework he uses is both ontologically flexible and epistemologically pluralist. Due to this perspective, Ball makes use of the contributions of such different authors as Foucault, Bourdieu, Bernstein and Weber, among others.

Stephen J. Ball is one of the associate directors of the Centre for Critical Education Policy Studies (CeCeps), of the Institute of Education - University of London. This Centre includes internationally renowned scholars who have helped shape the field of policy studies. CeCeps encourages research on the processes by which education policy is shaped, implemented and experienced. Equity, inclusion and the material consequences of policy are key concerns. The term "critical" encompasses a specific commitment to social justice. Thus, researchers of this Centre seek to interrogate, evaluate and analyse policy in terms of its contribution - both positive and negative - to the enhancement of social justice.

Ball's published work includes numerous books and articles. Among the main concepts and topics developed or explored by him, it is relevant to stress the following: policy cycle approach, micro politics, performativity and discursive changes, among others which have been used in Brazil by several researches1 1 . A list of Brazilian researches who have used Ball's ideas can be found on < http://www.uepg.br/gppepe> .

The interview transcribed below2 2 . The interview was translated into Portuguese by Maria Cristina Nogueira and revised by Maria Inês Marcondes. was carried out in London, on 11 September 2007, when the interviewers were attending the British Educational Research Association (Bera) Annual Conference), held at the Institute of Education - University of London. The interviewers have added some footnotes and references to the interview. A list of Stephen Ball's main works and papers translated into Portuguese is included at the end.

Interviewers (I): We have some questions about the policy cycle approach3 3 . Regarding this approach, see Bowe et al (1992), Ball (1994) and Mainardes (2006 . This approach was formulated in 1992 - 1994. Are you planning to write something else on the policy cycle, and if so what do you plan to write about?

Stephen J. Ball (SJB): To write about it more clearly really, to elaborate on some of the things that I speak about in a very condensed way in previous writing. The main point I would like to make is that the policy cycle is a method. That it is not about explaining policy. It is way of researching and theorizing policy. Some people read it and have responded to it as if I'm describing policy and the policy process. And its not meant to be a description of policy, its a way of thinking about policy and how policy gets 'done', using some key concepts that are different from the traditional conceptions, like for example the notion of enactment4 4 . Originally, Professor Ball used the term " enactment". Traditionally the word has been used in a legal context to describe the process of a law coming into force. Yet it can also be used in a theatrical sense to refer to the playing of a role or scene. Here it means putting into practice, but in a way in which the actors involved (e.g. teachers) have some control over shaping the process and are not just implementers. . I want to reject entirely the idea of policy being implemented, I don't think policy is implemented, which suggests a linear process whereby policy moves into practice in some direct way that is both mysterious but obvious. This is a sloppy an unthinking use of a verb. The process of translating policy into practice is an enormously complex process; it's a shift between modes. The primary mode of policy is textual, policies are written down, whereas practice is action, it involves doing things. So, the person who enacts policy has to translate between these modes, between the mode of the written word into the mode of action, and that's a very challenging thing to do. And what it involves is a process of enactment, the realization of policy in and through practice. Almost like a play, you have the words in the text of the play, but the reality of the play only comes alive when somebody enacts them, and that's a process of interpretation and creativity and policy is like that. Practice is made up of much more than the sum of a range of policies, and is typically invested with local and personal values, and as such involves the resolution of, or struggles with, contradictory expectations or requirements - compromises and secondary adjustments are required.

I: Teachers are actors, and they have their histories, life histories, related to school, curriculum…

SJB: And they bring their experience to that, or not, in some cases it might be a very inexperienced teacher who finds it very difficult to come to grips with the process of enactment. This is a social and personal process, but it's also a material process; in that policies have to be enacted in material contexts. If you have a well resourced school with lots of money, very experienced teachers, very cooperative students, then enactment is made somewhat easier than the situation if you have students with enormous learning difficulties, poor resources, bad buildings, very inexperienced teachers, then the whole process is different. Policies, particularly education policies, are thought and then written in relation to the best of all possible schools (classrooms, universities, colleges) with little acknowledgement of variations in context, in resources or in local capabilities.

I: We have some questions about the two last contexts you address in your work. Many researchers in different countries have addressed only the three primary contexts, and they don't say sometimes anything about the context of outcomes and political strategy. I don't know if you agree with this, but I have never read articles or research regarding the last two contexts. How do you see it?

SJB: I have re-thought this. It's not useful to separate them out and they should be subsumed in the context of practice and influence respectively. To a great extent outcomes are an extension of practice. First order outcomes5 5 . According to Ball, first order effects are are changes in practice or structure, which are evident in particular sites and across the system as a whole. Second order effects are the impact of these changes on patterns of social access, opportunity and social justice (Ball, 1994). arise from attempts to change the actions or behaviour of teachers or street-level practitioners, to change practice. Second order outcomes are also realized, or at least some of them are realized, within the context of practice, particularly those to do with performance or achievement, other forms of learning. Obviously other ones are both longer term and disappear into other contexts of realization. The context of political action actually belongs back in the context of influence, because it's part of the cycle of the process through which policy is changed, or might be changed, or at least policy thinking is changed or might be changed. Policy thinking and policy discourse can be changed by political action. So that should be subsumed back into the context of influence.

I: It is very important, but when you are approaching political strategies we have to go back to the context of influence or to other contexts.

SJB: The contexts can be thought of in another way and can be 'nested' into each other6 6 . Bob Lingard considers that the three primary contexts of the policy cycle approach (context of influence, text production, and context of practice) have 'parity of forces", what shape a useful way of "reconceptualising that the traditional literature in policy considers a linear and bottom-up approach between the production and policy implementation" (Lingard, 2004, p. 73). . So that within the context of practice you could have a context of influence and a context of text production, so that the context of influence within the context of practice would be in relation to the privileged version of policy or the privileged version of enactment, so there may be struggles or competing versions of policy within the context of practice, in different interpretations of interpretations. And then again, there may be a context of text production within the context of practice as practical materials are produced, which are for use within enactment. So they can be spaces within spaces. So you can think about policy in terms of spaces, and in terms of time, of policy trajectories, policy moves over time through a variety of spaces. A policy has a trajectory rather like a rocket: it takes off and it goes through space and then it lands. And sometimes it crashes, sometimes it comes to some spectacular realization but it moves across time and sometimes it simply fades away. Policies disappear over time, or sometimes it takes a long time for them to be embedded. Or sometimes they're rushed or delayed, you have to think about the speed of policy, you have to have a time dimension as well as a space dimension.

I: We would like to talk a little bit about critical research. In your opinion, what do you consider critical research, and what is the role of the researcher in critical research?

SJB: For me, all research is critical research. But I suppose for a definition it would be research that has as key concepts either/or the concept of power and/or social justice. So a critical perspective is an inevitable necessity if you're trying to understand how power works, because you can only, if you like, engage with power by developing a sense of its effects and also its inadequacies. And, if you engage with power you always want to ask questions about how people could be made up, produced differently. What is excluded by the work in power? And that often then leads you onto questions of social justice.

I: In Brazil we don't have articles, books or much theoretical work about social justice. Sometimes people say it is a liberal concept. What is your concept of social justice?

SJB: I suppose I would prefer to work with a concept of power, although the advantage of the concept of social justice is that it is an inclusive concept; that it is not specific to race or class or disability or sexuality; it takes a broad conception of issues of equity, opportunity and justice. So it's malleable, it has a wide range of application. It alerts the researcher to the ways in which oppression can work in a whole variety of ways, and can act on people in a whole variety of different ways, through their gender or their class position or their sexuality, or their degrees of ability, as well as the complex interrelation of these. It has advantages in that sense. It has disadvantages inevitably, it has a lack of theoretical precision in a way. And there is a very interesting response to the paper by Sharon and Allan by Terri Seddon called Framing Justice (I think), which is also in the Journal of Education Policy (v. 18, n. 3, 2003). She makes some very useful criticisms of the concept of social justice but in a very positive way, a very constructive way. I like the way that Nancy Fraser uses the concept in highlighting what she calls the "politics of distribution" and "politics of recognition"7 7 . Cf. Fraser (1997). . The basic concept that underpins everything I do is the concept of power, so I see social justice through the oppressions of power, I see the politics of distribution and recognition in terms of struggles of power. Both struggles for the control of assets and the control of discourses. Policies are invested with, or made up from both aspects of struggle, in terms of social advantage and social legitimacy. What counts as 'good' policy and whose interests are served by that definition of 'good'.

I: I think in the introduction to the book "Social Justice, education, and identity" (Routledge, 2003), Carol Vincent wrote a very good summary of those concepts. Unfortunately we have very few texts about social justice in Portuguese. What is the relevance of this concept?

SJB: Its been strategically a very successful concept in some ways, in that it during the 80s in particular there was an enormous fragmentation in critical social research; there were the Marxists who were doing their work, and then there were feminists, and there were disability studies, and then there were sexuality studies, and these things were all going in different directions and there was not much dialogue between them. And to some extent - I'm not saying it solved all those problems - but social justice has provided a space of dialogue in which these areas of interest and focus have been able to come together. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it has provided some common ground.

I: This is interesting because in Brazil we have many social problems and profound inequalities. Sometimes we have such pressing problems in our education system that we are obliged to think about practical issues. If we don't say anything constructive, then we are not really contributing to positive change.

SJB: Perhaps, but the other thing that worries me is that what you get are lots of solutions, lots of people have lots of solutions which don't seem to actually have much impact in the real world. And very often in academic work conclusions are a kind of form of performativity; you perform conclusions, as a way of demonstrating the value of your text. Your personal value-added to the grand enlightenment project. It would be more honest and realistic and useful if more researchers and academics would take a modest position, and try and build on, develop gradually accrete, accumulate work that provided a body of ideas from which then people could then draw on in relation to practice. But instead every body wants "conclusions', they want clarity, certainty and closure. They want to make themselves relevant. They want to make themselves commensurable within the normativities of research performance.

I: But I think somewhere you make a criticism about the pragmatic way of thinking in British research. In PhD theses, for example it is common to see policy recommendations in the conclusion. Do you think that British researchers are more pragmatic than researchers from other countries?

SJB: Yes I think so. But maybe I have a problem. I never feel I get to the point where I have any recommendations to make, other than, 'maybe we should try and think about this better'. And usually what I'm trying to do is deconstruct the common sense which is currently being used rather than to offer some kind of new common sense.

I: In this sense I think there are some differences between you and Sharon. For example, in the Chapter of the book edited by Carol Vincent (Social Justice, education, and identity, Routledge, 2003), Sharon Gewirtz and Allan Cribb say: "It is not enough simply to identify tensions and dilemmas that are embedded within the work of practitioners, or contextual factors which shape or constrain what they do, or to document processes of social and cultural reproduction. If we take plural conceptions of justice seriously, then we need o try and ensure that our work is of practical help to those struggling to do their best to advance the cause of social justice in challenging circumstances" (p. 21)

SJB: Well, it comes back to what you mean by practical. I mean if I were being cynical, I would say that this is a performative statement. We need to ensure that our work is of practical help to people who are struggling to do their best. What does that mean? How can our work be a practical help in the sense that is distinguished here from the idea of identifying tensions and dilemmas. Does she mean that we should tell people what to do, or how to do things better, and how do we know that, how do we know it is better? How we can say what is better? Maybe rather we should be supporting people in practical situations to discuss and debate what 'better' means.

I: I know it's a very difficult question, but how do you think Bernstein would respond to this question? Would he agree with you or would he say that it is important to think about practical outcomes?

Ball: He also saw his work as the development as a set of tools, as ways of thinking about the message systems of education - he wanted to change the focus of the problem of sociological research in education. His concern was with the intrinsic features of pedagogic discourse not 'what is relayed' but the pedagogic device, the voice, that structures and organises the content and distribution of what is being relayed. He was trying to develop a model that related those message systems to the relays of schooling and to different rules of recognition and realisation, and which could thus explain educational institutions as generators of inequality. His approach suggests an entirely different conception of educational reform, or of the object of reform, in that sense it is very practical.

I: That's very interesting. In the book "Tribute to Basil Bernstein" (2001) there is an article by Sally Power in which she wrote the four things she learnt from Bernstein, and one of them is that Bernstein's analyses encourage people to understand the world, not necessarily to change it.

SJB: But, as they say, there is nothing so practical as a good theory. Consideration of the ways of organizing how we think about problems is the first step towards tackling them differently. That is, to begin by thinking about how the problem to be addressed is constructed. How does something come to be seen as a problem in need of policy. And social science is as much the problem as the solution here - if I can put it that way. This was what Bernstein was suggesting in his way, but also what Michel Foucault was constantly addressing. That is, the way in which social science itself provides tools which organize ways of thinking about social problems and is implicated in the management of populations. One of the things which is embedded in the practicality of social science, through the pressure on educational researchers to make recommendations for policy, is that we are contributing to regimes of discipline. We are making the population categorisable. We are establishing norms for correct behavior. Setting standards for 'good' practice. Defining 'best' practice. This is a moral enterprise as much as a scientific one! We may see ourselves as addressing issues of inequality, but we are also part of governmentality, the production of knowledge which enables individuals to govern themselves.

I: Just one more question about the relation between academic research, policy and practice. In this conference, some researchers argued that research must or can inform practice and policies. In Brazil, in terms of Bernstein's theory, the official and pedagogic fields usually are separated, only seldom being addressed together. Why is it that British researchers are comparatively so concerned about the functionality of educational research?

SJB: It is partly to do with the pragmatic history of the social sciences. But it is also a recent phenomenon, in the UK it is part of the general worldview of New Labour, that has involved a commitment to evidence-based policy8 8 . In order to gain an overview of the discussion on based-evidence practice, see Hammersley (2007), Thomas & Pring (2007) and Macnab & Thomas (2007). . Although it tends to be a commitment in rhetoric, in that the government picks and chooses the evidence which tends to suit them and their policy preferences at any point in time. But being policy relevant is attractive to a lot of British social scientists, and many seek to orient their research towards the practical problems that government identifies. But the idea of research as 'evidence' for policy is also used as a device to discipline research, it is used to select particular sorts of research for funding, to privilege certain sorts of research over others. It's a way of excluding certain questions and issues and voices from research.

I: And I think it is also highly competitive, isn't it?

Ball: Yes there is certainly a competition to influence and to be heard. Competition to get onto key committees to talk about research, to 'sell' policy ideas - policy entrepreneurship. This is a new kind of career for academics.

I: It can be observed, for instance, in your article with Sharon Gewirtz (From welfarism to new-managerialism: shifting discourses of school headship in the education marketplace - 2000). It is very interesting to understand how people can incorporate discourse overtime. Reading this article allows us to better apprehend what is happening, but we don't find (in the article) tools for changing things, but ideas, important and powerful ideas to understanding the shifting discourses and practices.

SJB: Yes, it's the first step but it's a necessary step. Unless you have some understanding of the situation in which you find yourself, then you don't have any possibility of acting strategically, there's no where else to go. Otherwise, using the title of another paper, you're "captured by the discourse"9 9 . It refers to the paper, "Captured by discourse: issues and concerns in researching parental choice" (Ball& Gewirtz, 1994). , you're always operating within the discourse… and perhaps you can do interesting things, and productive things inside the discourse. But you're still limited in terms of possibilities for thinking differently, you can only think inside of the possibilities of the discourse, and only think inside the way in which problems are produced by the discourse.

I: Could you tell us more about your approach to pluralism in your work? You seem to use an eclectic mix of authors in your work, and I'd just like you to talk a little bit about how that mix came about and how it works together.

SJB: The point is that all theory is inadequate by definition. All theory is limited by the positions that it takes up, the preconceptions within which it operates. Theory often claims to explain the whole world to us, but fails inevitably, and most theories tell us some useful things about some bits of the world, so I start partly with the idea that if you want to develop a more coherent and joined-up analysis of the world you actually need different kinds of theories. For example, most theories, with Bourdieu being the exception I suppose, most theories either work from a position of structuralism or a position of agency,10 10 . The debate surrounding the influence pf structure and agency on human thought and behaviour is one of the central issues in sociology and other social sciences. In this context "agency" refers to the capacity of individual humans to act independently and to make their own free choices. "Structure" refers to those factors such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs etc. which seem to limit or influence the opportunities available to individuals. privileging one over the other. So if you want to understand agency, unless you want to reduce it entirely always to the determinations of structure, then you need a different theory of agency to set over and against your theory of structure. One of the attractions of Bourdieu is he actually tries to deconstruct that binary and to work in a way combines the possibilities of agency and structure in a single model, and I find that very attractive. But I you can expand that to think about how other bits of the world work, and that you actually need, as Michel Foucault suggested, a tool-box of theories. One of the significant things about Bourdieu and Foucault is neither of them have a social theory, in the sense that Marx does, or Durkheim does. They do not offer us a totalizing theory that tells us how the world works.

I: Concepts, do they have concepts?

SJB: They have concepts, they have practical and powerful concepts. Sometimes people say that I'm a Foucauldian. I'm not a Foucauldian in at least two senses - in my methods I am very much an reconstructed modernist, rather than a post-structuralist. But, second, there is nothing that is a Foucauldian. There is no coherent position or theoretical space which is the position of Foucault. Foucault himself didn't attempt to create a coherent position from which he spoke - but in a very simple sense I also believe that you need more than one theory to make sense of the social world; although if you do put together different kinds of theoretical positions, you have to be aware of what you're doing, you can't just throw theories together without being aware that there may be problems in terms of their relationships or contradictions, ontological and epistemological. You have to deploy them with some sense of reflective self-awareness. And again Bourdieu wrote about that in interesting ways. He again was aware of that. But it is also important to recognise that in the micropolitics of the academy within which theoretical knowledge is separated into competing paradigms, there is a tendency to exaggerate differences between theorists. And I'm more interested in stressing some of the commonalities rather than differences. Bourdieu talks in some of his books about seeing himself taking on some of the primary concerns of Weber, so he doesn't see himself as being an entirely different sort of theorist from Weber. Many of his ideas in relation to the work of "Distinction"11 11 . The version in Portuguese is "Distinção: crítica social do julgamento" (Zouk, 2007). , his book on class and cultural capitals, has very strong Weberian elements to it, and there are other aspects of his work in terms of notions about field and power, which have very strong Weberian aspects to them too. There are also some epistemological parallels or links between Bourdieu and Foucault in terms of there practice or scholarship, and Foucault was Bourdieu's sponsor at the College de France, and people I think tend to forget that Foucault thought very highly of Bourdieu's work and vice versa. And of course, going in the other direction, Althusser was Foucault's tutor, and I think there are some interesting echoes of Althusser's work in Foucault. So I tend to be interested in the ways that theories relate, rather than the things that separate them. You can tell different theoretical stories, you can tell stories about how different people are, but you can also tell stories about how they might be saying similar or related things. Bourdieu, Weber, Foucault and Althusser, and Bernstein were open-minded thinkers, rather than close-minded thinkers, and they didn't think about themselves as being closed off from other influences.

I: Professor Ball, thank you very much indeed for this interview.

Notes

References

Principais obras de Stephen J. Ball: / Principais obras de Stephen J. Ball:

Textos de Stephen J. Ball publicados em português: / Textos de Stephen J. Ball publicados em português:

  • BALL, S.J. Education reform: a critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press. 1994.
  • BALL, S.J.; GEWIRTZ, S. Captured by the discourse: issues and concerns in researching parental choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, London, v. 14, n. 1, p. 63-79, 1994.
  • BOURDIEU, P. Distinção: crítica social do julgamento. Porto Alegre: Zouk, 2007.
  • BOWE, R.; BALL, S.; GOLD, A. Reforming education & changing schools: case studies in Policy Sociology. London: Routledge, 1992.
  • LINGARD, B. É e não é: globalização vernacular, política e reestruturação educacional. In: BURBULES, N.; TORRES, C.A. Globalização e educação: perspectivas críticas. Porto Alegre: ARTMED, 2004, p. 59-76.
  • FRASER, N. Justice interruptus: critical reflections on the "Postsocialist" condition. London: Routledge, 1997.
  • HAMMERSLEY, M. Educational research and evidence-based practice London: Sage, 2007.
  • MACNAB, N.; THOMAS, G. A prática baseada em evidências na educação. Pátio, Porto Alegre, n. 41, fev./abr. 2007.
  • MAINARDES, J. Abordagem do ciclo de políticas: uma contribuição para a análise de políticas educacionais. Educação & Sociedade, Campinas, v. 27, n. 94, jan./abr. 2006.
  • THOMAS, G.; PRING, R. Educação baseada em evidências: a utilização dos achados científicos para a qualificação da prática pedagógica. Porto Alegre: ARTMED, 2007.
  • Beachside comprehensive: a case-study of secondary schooling (Cambridge, 1981).
  • The micro-politics of the school: towards a theory of school organization (Routledge, 1987).
  • Teachers' lives and careers (organizado por Stephen J. Ball e Ivor F. Goodson) (Falmer, 1985).
  • Foucault and education: disciplines and knowledge (Routledge, 1990).
  • Politics and policy making in education: explorations in policy sociology (Routledge, 1990).
  • Reforming education and changing schools: case studies in policy sociology (organizado com Richard Bowe) (Routledge, 1992).
  • Education reform: a critical and post-structural approach (Open University Press, 1994).
  • Markets, choice and equity in education (organizado com Sharon Gewirtz e Richard Bowe) (OUP, 1995).
  • Education policy and social class: the selected works of Stephen J. Ball (Routledge, 2006).
  • Education Plc: understanding private sector participation in public sector education (Routledge, 2007).
  • The education debate (Policy Press, 2008).
  • Mercados educacionais, escolha e classe social: o mercado como uma estratégia de classe. In: GENTILI, P. Pedagogia da exclusão: crítica ao neoliberalismo em educação. Petrópolis: Vozes. 1995. p. 196-227.
  • Cidadania global, consumo e política educacional. In: SILVA, L.H. A escola cidadã no contexto da globalização Petrópolis: Vozes, 1998. p. 121-137.
  • Diretrizes políticas globais e relações políticas locais em educação. Currículo Sem Fronteiras, v. 1, n. 2, p. xxvii-xliii, 2001. Disponível em: <www.curriculosemfronteiras.org>
  • Reformar escolas/reformar professores e os terrores da performatividade. Revista Portuguesa de Educação, Braga, v. 15, n. 2, p. 3-23, 2002. Disponível em: <www.redalyc.org>
  • Stephen Ball e a educação (entrevista a Lucíola Licínio de C. P. Santos). Educação em Revista, Belo Horizonte, n. 40, p. 11- 25, dez. 2004.
  • Performatividade, privatização e o pós-Estado do Bem-Estar. Educação & Sociedade, Campinas, v. 25, n. 89, p. 1105-1126, set-/dez. 2004. Disponível em: <www.scielo.br/es>
  • Profissionalismo, gerencialismo e performatividade. Cadernos de Pesquisa, São Paulo, v. 35, n. 126, p. 539-564, 2005. Disponível em: <www.scielo.br/cp>
  • Educação à venda Coleção Discursos. Cadernos de Políticas Educativas. Mangualde: Edições Pedago, 2005.
  • Sociologia das políticas educacionais e pesquisa crítico-social: uma revisão pessoal das políticas educacionais e da pesquisa em política educacional. Currículo Sem Fronteiras, v. 6, n. 2, p. 10-32, jul./dez. 2006. Disponível em <www.curriculosemfronteiras.org>
  • Discursos da reforma educacional no Reino Unido e nos Estados Unidos e o trabalho dos professores (em co-autoria com Meg Maguire). Práxis Educativa, Ponta Grossa, v. 2, n. 2, p. 97 - 104, jul.-dez. 2007. Disponível em: <http://www.uepg.br/praxiseducativa>
  • 1
    . A list of Brazilian researches who have used Ball's ideas can be found on <
  • 2
    . The interview was translated into Portuguese by Maria Cristina Nogueira and revised by Maria Inês Marcondes.
  • 3
    . Regarding this approach, see Bowe et al (1992), Ball (1994) and Mainardes (2006
  • 4
    . Originally, Professor Ball used the term "
    enactment". Traditionally the word has been used in a legal context to describe the process of a law coming into force. Yet it can also be used in a theatrical sense to refer to the playing of a role or scene. Here it means putting into practice, but in a way in which the actors involved (e.g. teachers) have some control over shaping the process and are not just implementers.
  • 5
    . According to Ball, first order effects are are changes in practice or structure, which are evident in particular sites and across the system as a whole. Second order effects are the impact of these changes on patterns of social access, opportunity and social justice (Ball, 1994).
  • 6
    . Bob Lingard considers that the three primary contexts of the policy cycle approach (context of influence, text production, and context of practice) have 'parity of forces", what shape a useful way of "reconceptualising that the traditional literature in policy considers a linear and bottom-up approach between the production and policy implementation" (Lingard, 2004, p. 73).
  • 7
    . Cf. Fraser (1997).
  • 8
    . In order to gain an overview of the discussion on based-evidence practice, see Hammersley (2007), Thomas & Pring (2007) and Macnab & Thomas (2007).
  • 9
    . It refers to the paper, "Captured by discourse: issues and concerns in researching parental choice" (Ball& Gewirtz, 1994).
  • 10
    . The debate surrounding the influence pf structure and agency on human thought and behaviour is one of the central issues in sociology and other social sciences. In this context "agency" refers to the capacity of individual humans to act independently and to make their own free choices. "Structure" refers to those factors such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs etc. which seem to limit or influence the opportunities available to individuals.
  • 11
    . The version in Portuguese is "Distinção: crítica social do julgamento" (Zouk, 2007).
  • Publication Dates

    • Publication in this collection
      02 July 2009
    • Date of issue
      Apr 2009
    Centro de Estudos Educação e Sociedade - Cedes Av. Berttrand Russel, 801 - Fac. de Educação - Anexo II - 1 andar - sala 2, CEP: 13083-865, +55 12 99162 5609, Fone / Fax: + 55 19 3521-6710 / 6708 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
    E-mail: revistas.cedes@linceu.com.br