FOUCAULT’S DISCOURSE THEORY AND METHODOLOGY: AN APPLICATION TO ART EDUCATION POLICY DISCOURSE 1970-2000 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Betty Jane Cataldi, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Sydney Walker, Advisor Professor Vesta Daniel ___________________________ Professor Margaret Wyszomirski Advisor Department of Art Education ABSTRACT Much scholarly criticism has been written about the rapidly changing arts education curricular theories and policies of the last thirty years. These diverse, sometimes polarized, orientations alternately have emphasized curriculum content, instructional methods and evaluation and have advocated for various program structures. The critique often has been ideologically biased and relied on unclear philosophical distinctions. Overly dependent on criticism by individual scholars, practitioners, artist, advocates and policymakers, such critique seldom has documented systematically the broad policy processes and structures that inevitably transform curriculum ideology as policy is formulated. Recognizing, curriculum orientations effect more than student learning, this study examines the influence of these curriculum debates on the formation of ideas, ideas that eventually have informed arts education policy agendas. Substantial policy research in arts education, however, often is limited due to a lack of reliable policy research methods. This study recognizes a need for a coherent theoretical framework, methodology and model tailored to the needs of policy research in an arts education environment. The philosophical writings of Michel Foucault and his outline of an archeological mode of discourse inquiry are examined for their relevance to idea formation in policy research. Through textual analysis, the model analyses three discourse organizations/communities (the Arts, Education and Americans Panel, The Getty Institute for Education in the Arts, and The Consortium of National Arts Education ii Associations) from 1970-2000, the discursive forces operating in their situational context, the conceptual framework behind the organizations’ ideology, and, finally, the discourse strategies used by other and opposing communities simultaneously engaged in advocacy in their respective discourse fields. The findings of this study demonstrate that Foucault’s theory, methods and the model constructed for this study are respectively relevant, valuable and effective when investigating idea formation in policy formulation. By using Foucault’s suggestions for discourse inquiry, this study revealed that the major importance of curriculum orientations are as advocacy mechanisms; ultimately the formation of ideas in curriculum theories, then, are secondary to negotiations inherent in political and policy discourse. iii To Donald, for all his love and support iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to remember James Hutchens, my adviser, who started with me on this intellectual journey and who has continued to guide me in spirit. I wish to thank Vesta Daniel, Michael Parsons and Sydney Walker, members of my original committee, who graciously responded when I needed their counsel. I am appreciative of the advice of Margaret Wyszomirski, who agreed to join my committee, and guided this study on issues related to policy study. And, my sincere thanks to Sydney Walker who unselfishly assumed the advisement of this study, whose time and attention to all aspects of this project were helpful, but whose intellectual interest and encouragement were invaluable. v VITA April 23, 1945.............................................Born– Louisville, Kentucky 1967............................................................Bachelor of Arts, University of Kentucky 1973............................................................Master of Arts, The Ohio State University 2000-2003..................................................Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State University FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Art Education Specialization: Arts Policy and Administration vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… ii Dedication………………………………………………………………………… iv Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………... v Vita……………………………………………………………………………….. vi List of Tables……………………………………………………………………… x List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………… xi Chapters: 1. Introduction to the Problem ……………...……………..……….. 1 Statement of the Problem…………….……………………..…… 4 Research Questions………………….…………..………………. 5 Rationale of the Study……………….………….……………….. 6 Theoretical Framework: An Overview………….……………….. 9 Significance of the Study ………….……………..…………..….. 10 Delimitations and Limitations of the Study……………….…….. 13 Definition of Terms……………………………….……….......... 14 Summary …………………………………………...……............ 16 2. Review of Literature ……………………………………..……. 17 Relevant Theory and Research Literature: Policy Studies......… 18 Specific Theory and Research Literature: Education Policy….. 31 Art Education Curriculum Theory and Criticism………...…… 38 Discourse Theory and Art Education Policy Research……….. 47 Contributions to Art Education Policy Literature…………….. 53 Summary……………………………………………………… 56 3. Foucault’s Theory and Methodology ………………………… 58 On History and Universal Truth ………………………...….... 58 On Genealogy ……………………………………………....... 60 On Power and Knowledge……………………………………. 61 On Political Theory…………………………….…………...... 63 The Discursive Statement…………………………………….. 65 vii The Archeological Analysis………………………………….. 67 The Genealogical Interpretation…………………………….... 68 Summary……………………………………………….….….. 69 4. Research Design and Procedures ……………………………. 70 Research Methodology: Specific Procedures ……………….. 70 The Formation of Objects……………………………………. 72 The Formation of Enunciative Modalities…………………… 77 The Formation of Concepts …………………………………. 82 The Formation of Strategies…………………………………. 89 Plan of the Study ……………………………………………. 94 Model Modification …………………………………………. 95 Research Population and Text Sample ……………………… 98 Summary… ………………………………………………….. 103 5. The Formation of Objects: Demonstration of Model.………. 104 Purpose of the Objects Formation Model ………………..….. 104 Discourse Context #1……………………………………….... 108 Discourse Context #2……………………………………….... 122 Discourse Context #3……………………………………….... 137 Archeological Findings: Objects……………………………… 153 Meta Analysis of Model Effectiveness …………………….... 156 Summary……………………………………………………… 158 6. The Formation of Enunciative Modes: Demonstration of Model. 159 Purpose of the Enunciative Modes Model…………………..... 159 Discourse Organization #1………………….………………… 162 Discourse Organization #2…………… ……………………… 183 Discourse Organization #3………………………………….... 206 Archeological Findings: Enunciative Modes……………….... 230 Meta Analysis of Model Effectiveness ……………………… 234 Summary……………………………………………………… 236 7. The Formation of Concepts: Demonstration of Model ……… 237 Purpose of Concepts Formation Model …………………….... 237 Discourse Text #1…………………………………………….. 241 Discourse Text #2…….……………………………………….. 256 viii Discourse Text #3……………………….………………….… 267 Archeological Findings: Concepts………...…………………. 281 Meta Analysis of Model Effectiveness………………………. 286 Summary………………………………………..……………. 288 8. The Formation of Strategies: Demonstration of Model ………. 289 Purpose of the Strategies Formation Model…………………. 289 Discourse Field #1…………………………………………… 293 Discourse Field #2…………………………………………… 313 Discourse Field #3………………………………………….... 332 Archeological Findings: Strategies ………...……………….... 349 Meta Analysis of Model Effectiveness ………………… …… 355 Summary……………………………………………………… 357 9. The Genealogical Interpretation: Presentation of Results……. 358 Purpose of Genealogical Interpretation……………………….. 358 Discourse Disjuncture: Objects……………………………..... 359 Discourse Disjuncture: Modes ……………………………..... 361 Discourse Disjuncture: Concepts …………………………..... 362 Discourse Disjuncture: Strategies…………………………...... 363 Genealogical Findings: Policy Discourse Analysis…………… 364 Meta Analysis of Interpretation Procedures…………………… 365 Summary………………………………………………………. 366 10 Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations ……………….. 367 The Effectiveness of the Procedural Model………………... 367 The Research Values in Foucault’s Mode of Inquiry………. 368 The Implications of Foucault’s Discourse Theory…………. 372 Recommendations for Discourse Method and Model …….. 379 The Relevance of Foucault’s Work to Policy Research…..... 382 Summary …………………………………………………... 383 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………. 385 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Foucault’s Analytic Formations…………………………………………………..71 5.1 Formation of Objects…………………………………………………………….105 6.1 Formation of Enunciative Modes………………………………………………..160 7.1 Formation of Concepts…………………………………………………………..238 8.1 Formation of Strategies………………………………………………………….290 x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AAE Alliance for Arts Education AATE American Alliance for Theatre in Education ACA American Council for the Arts ACAE American Council for Arts in Education AEAP: Arts, Education and Americans Panel AEP Arts Education Partnership AHP Arts and Humanities Program (U. S. Office of Education) AIE Arts in Education Program (John D. Rockefeller 3rd Fund) ATA American Theatre Association CCSSO Council of Chief State School Officers CEMREL Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory CNAEA Consortium of National Arts Education Association DAMT Assembly of National Arts Education Organizations GCEA Getty Center for Education