Problematising Critical Discourse Analysis and Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be’ Approach in Critical Policy Analysis: A Theoretical Elaboration

Abstract Critical discourse analysis (CDA) and Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem represented to be’ approach (WPR) represent two popular discourse analytical methods in policy analyses that can be broadly categorised as critical policy analysis or policy sociology. Discourse is assembled in and created through language. However, the linguistic aspect—even in the form of socio-linguistics— constitutes a minor aspect of study in discursive analytical approaches in social sciences. For critical discourse analysis (CDA), discourse analysis means to ‘identify the processes by which language (re)produces social practices and helps privilege certain ways of doing, thinking, and being over others’ (Mulderrig, Montessori, Farrelly, 2019, p. 1). In contrast, WPR, a Foucauldian-inspired discourse analysis, seeks “to identify, within a text, institutionally supported and culturally influenced interpretive and conceptual schemas (discourses) that produce particular understandings of issues and events” (Bacchi, 2005, p. 199). The different conceptualisation towards discourse and the analysis that follows from it implies that these two approaches are theoretically, conceptually distinct, and empirically incompatible. However, it is not unusual to find papers in critical policy literature that conflates critical discourse analysis (CDA) with WPR. These studies treat these two approaches as theoretically related, applying them simultaneously to answer a specific research question. This paper aims to demonstrate that these two approaches are incompatible as they represent two distinct research traditions. I will first briefly elucidate the different meanings of discourse in CDA and WPR. CDA combines the ‘internal’ study of language with the ‘external’ of the situational context to understand social practices and relations (Cheng, 2009), whereas, for WPR, the emphasis is on the knowledge systems that give rise to our examined ways of thinking, which in turn results in self-governance. The following section juxtaposes the different philosophical underpinnings of CDA and WPR, which aims to demonstrate their different ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions. For example, CDA is generally underpinned by critical realism, while the ontology of WPR can be said as constructivism or relational ontology. Finally, I will compare and contrast their utilities in empirical social research. CDA is an excellent tool for understanding the intentionality of the policymakers and uncovering hidden powers. In contrast, WPR helps us investigate particular problem representation in a policy and how that representation leads to self-governance. References Bacchi, C. (2005). Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject “Agency” in Feminist Discourse Methodology. NORA: Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740600600407 Cheng, A.Y.N. (2009), “Analysing complex policy change in Hong Kong: what role for critical discourse analysis?”, International Journal of Education Management, 23(4), 360-366. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540910957453 Mulderrig, J., Montessori, N. M., & Farrelly. M. (2019). Introducing critical policy discourse analysis Montesano Montessori, N., Farrelly, M., Mulderrig, J. (Eds) Critical Policy Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-22). Edward Elgar