Introductory Note

What is it about?

Presentation by the guest editors of the special issue Institutional Discourses of Authority on the School and the Education Systems: Circulation and (Re)production of Meanings in Education Research.

Featured Image

Photo by 12photostory on Unsplash

Photo by 12photostory on Unsplash

Why is it important?

Several authors have underscored the effect of international institutions’ discourses on the School and the education systems in national discourses, focusing, above all, on the discourses produced by institutions without legal mandate, in which the discourse acts as means of communication and influence for the definition, legitimation and recognition of their authority [1]. Other studies, centred on the analysis of how these texts work, have highlighted their loss of meaning due to discursive reduction, reinforcing a depoliticized vision of education, or one close to common sense, and the contradiction between these discourses’ claim to a scientific basis and the tautologic nature, the truisms and even the nonsense revealed by their statements [2]. Within the scope of this special issue, we see the authority discourse on the School and the education systems in a broad sense, in other words, as a discourse which is capable of establishing itself as manner of evidence, of neutrality and of consensus as well as, at the same time, a deterrent of questioning and discussion [3]. From a conceptual distinction in which the text names the artifact/document and the discourse the means for action, what the text produces when it manifests itself in a discourse instance [4], we situate the institutional discourse as a type of authorised discourse on education capable of producing recognition, visibility or a specific prominence, according to their enunciators’ inscription in a specific discursive community/institution. [1] See for instance: Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2020) The educational aims of the OECD in its TALIS insight and lesson reports: Exploring societal orientations. Critical Studies in Education, 61(2), 166-179; Lopo, T.T. (2021). The political decision on Portugal’s entry into PISA: A research note. Policy Futures in Education,19(6) 723-729; Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, R., & Verger, A. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of global education policy. Wiley-Blackwell; Robertson, S. (2012). Placing teachers in global governance agendas. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 584–607. [2] See for instance: Bart, D. (2015). Le discours de la recherche dans le Programme international de suivi des acquis des élèves: Un mode d’exposition pour un effet d’imposition? Revue Française de Pédagogie, 191(2), 89-100; Bart, D., & Daunay, B. (2016). Les blagues à PISA. Le discours sur l’école d’une institution internationale. Éditions du Croquant; Bernardo, L. M. (2010). À volta da hibridez discursiva: Questões de textualidade e educação. Itinerários de Filosofia da Educação, 9, 119-152; Bernardo, L. M. (2016). Mal-estar na educação: O declínio do humanismo. In M. G. Alves, L. L. Torres, B. Dionísio, & P. Abrantes (Eds.), A educação na Europa do Sul, constrangimentos e desafios em tempos incertos (pp. 42-56). FCSH-UNL; Perrot, M.-D. (2001). Mondialiser le non sens. L'Age d'Homme. [3] See for instance: Krieg-Planque, A. (2017). Analyser les discours institutionnels. Armand Colin; Monte, M., & Oger, C. (2015). La construction de l’autorité en contexte. L’effacement du dissensus dans les discours institutionnels. Mots. Les langages du politique, 107, 5-18; or Oger, C. (2021). Faire référence. La construction de l’autorité dans le discours des institutions. Editions EHESS. [4] According to: Oger, C., & Ollivier-Yaniv, C. (2003). Analyse du discours institutionnel et sociologie compréhensive: Vers une anthropologie des discours institutionnels. Mots. Les langages du politique, 71, 125-145; see also: Saarinen, T. (2008). Position of text and discourse analysis in higher education policy research. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 719-728.