A critical discourse problematization framework for (disability) policy analysis: “good cop/bad cop” strategy

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to present a composite framework for critical policy analysis drawing from discourse analysis and post-structuralist analysis. Drawing on an interpretive paradigm (Yanow, 2014), this paper provides a thick description (Geertz, 1973) of the processes involved in the application of these tools in a critical policy analysis project, focusing on disability policy within the Irish context. Methodologically, this is a resourceful cross-fertilization of analytical tools to interrogate policy, highlighting its potential within critical disability policy analysis and beyond.

Design/methodology/approach

Merging a critical discourse analysis framework and a policy problematization approach, the combination of tools presented here, along with their associated processes, is referred to as the critical discourse problematization framework.

Findings

Potentially, the framework can also be employed across a number of cognate social policy fields including education, welfare and social justice.

Practical implications

The value of this paper lies in its potential to be used within analytical practice in the field of critical (disability) policy work by offering an evaluation of the analytical tools and theoretical framework deployed and modeled across an entire research process.

Social implications

The framework has the potential and has been used successfully as a tool for disability activism to influence policy development.

Originality/value

The analytical framework presented here is a methodically innovative approach to the study of policy analysis, marrying two distinct analytical tools to form a composite framework for the study of policy text.

Citation

Van Aswegen, J., Hyatt, D. and Goodley, D. (2019), "A critical discourse problematization framework for (disability) policy analysis: “good cop/bad cop” strategy", Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0004