3

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Language, ideology, and power

Izhak Berkovich and Pascale Benoliel

Introduction
Discourse consists of textual, verbal, or graphic communications used for
understanding, observing, and appreciating the world (Berkovich & Benoliel,
2019; Sengul, 2019). Policies, narratives, written texts like letters or textbooks,
discussions, speeches, meetings, school teachings, nonverbal communication,
visual imagery, multimedia, and cinema are just a few of the various forms or
genres that discourse may take (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). There are several
approaches to discourse analysis. This chapter focuses on a particular form
known as critical discourse analysis (CDA).
CDA centres on the dialectic relationship between discursive activity and
social practice, which results in discourse both constituting social practice and
being constituted by it (Fairclough, 2015). The approach focuses particu-
larly on how social power is expressed through language (Wodak & Meyer,
2009). CDA aims to identify and expose implicit or concealed power relations
in speech (van Dijk, 1993). According to CDA scholars, discourse not only
reflects power relations but is also constitutive of them – that is, it upholds
and perpetuates the existing status quo (Fairclough, 2015; Wodak & Meyer,
2009). Discourse can generate and sustain power imbalances, with ideologi-
cal consequences (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Moreover, scholars suggest that
dominance is exercised directly through language in certain settings and indi-
rectly by influencing others’ opinions (van Dijk, 1993).
In contrast to discourse analysis, which is an umbrella term that includes
various approaches to investigating language in different settings without nec-
essarily highlighting the dynamics of power and ideologies, CDA emphasizes
the critical study of language to uncover social, political, and ideological aspects

DOI: 10.4324/9781003353379-5
This chapter has been made available under a (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
 Critical discourse analysis 29

(Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Wetherell et al., 2001). CDA has become a
common analytical approach in educational research, as evident from various
reviews (Lester et al., 2016; Liasidou, 2008; Luke, 1995; Mullet, 2018; Rog-
ers et al., 2005, 2016). In the last 50 years, a signifcant body of CDA works
in education has been documented by researchers specializing in educational
policy and education literacy, who explored middle schools, high schools,
and various higher-education settings (Rogers et al., 2005, 2016; Rogers &
Schaenen, 2014). CDA analysts in education focus on materials such as policy
statements, textbooks, websites, and YouTube videos produced by individu-
als, educational institutions, and international educational agencies (e.g. Arce-
Trigatti & Anderson, 2020; Berkovich & Benoliel, 2020a, 2020b; Sharma &
Buxton, 2015; Wilson & Carlsen, 2016).
In recent decades, educational policy scholars have increasingly turned to
CDA to investigate underlying issues of power, social injustice, the (re)pro-
duction of dominance, and the formation of identities within policy “talk,”
legislative texts, or both (e.g. Barrett & Bound, 2015; Berkovich & Benoliel,
2020a, 2020b; Liasidou, 2008; Taylor, 2004; see also the introduction to a
special issue on “Critical Discourse Analysis and Education Policy” by Lester
et al., 2016). CDA in educational policy research can be used to explore both
the macro level of policy (e.g. how policy actors promote and reproduce spe-
cifc ideologies) and its micro level (e.g. what is the orientation of policy imple-
menters and how they make sense of the policy within a given organizational
context) (Lester et al., 2016).
Some scholars have suggested that CDA can provide a starting point for
challenging widely held beliefs about how educational policy has come to exist
and be understood by policy players, implementers, and society stakeholders
(Lester et al., 2016). In doing so, it presents alternate viewpoints on these
problems that can guide educational decision-making and advance the objec-
tives of frequently marginalized groups (Lester et al., 2016). CDA can also
detect underlying epistemic disparities that pertain to particular educational
policies or refect locally developed understandings of how policy should work
(Lester et al., 2016).
Fairclough (2013a) argued that the main contribution of CDA is its ability
to critique the “problem–solution” dynamics at the heart of policymaking.
CDA can help us understand how policy problems are constructed, particu-
larly how diferent social imaginaries are associated with diferent interpreta-
tions and narratives of crisis. Fairclough also suggested that CDA can promote
a better understanding of the many levels and places at which issues are prob-
lematized, as well as the diferent social actor categories involved in the process
(e.g. problematization by social actors in academia, politics, management, and
governance who seek to study, regulate, govern, and change aspects of existing
social life). CDA can also show how diferent problematizations favour certain
30 Izhak Berkovich and Pascale Benoliel

solutions and exclude others, and the sets of values and concerns behind the
proposed solutions. He noted further that CDA can explain how policies are
constructed by the image of the target population (deviant, powerful, etc.).
In this chapter, we seek to show how text and language create versions of
human reality and thus serve the social dominance of strong actors and insti-
tutions. The understanding of the interaction of language and social power
structures helps explain how language is used in educational research, prac-
tice, and policy. This chapter includes the following sections: (a) a description
of the CDA approach, its objectives, and the types of topics it addresses; (b)
practical procedures crucial for the CDA process, including a description of
Fairclough’s technique; (c) examples of the analytical method in action; and
(d) refections on the potential of CDA for future research on policy analysis
in education, which serves as the conclusion of this chapter.

An overview of the CDA approach

Discourse analysis is defned as the exploration of talk and texts. Specifcally,
it focuses on studying the language in use in social settings, elucidating the
meaning behind dialogues that are part of the social sphere, as well as the
cultural importance of these dialogues and the representation associated with
them (Wetherell et al., 2001). CDA is an approach to discourse analysis that
originally emerged from the work of linguists in Europe in the 1980s (Blom-
maert & Bulcaen, 2000). CDA has been “critical” of other types of discourse
analysis that are technically accomplished but failed to address how structures
and power create and infuence discourse (Smith, 2007). Scholars have argued
that social actors engaging in discourse do not simply employ their individual
experiences and methods, they rely on common frames of perception and view
discourse as the interface between society, mind, and discursive interaction
(Sengul, 2019; Wodak & Meyer, 2009).
For CDA, discourse is key to the operation of power in social processes
(van Dijk, 2015; Fairclough, 2015). It examines the dynamics of power and
how they use discourse in subtle but controlling manners (Fairclough, 2015).
Discourse reproduces power in given social situations (van Dijk, 1993, 2015),
and CDA “decodes” how discourse is used for this purpose. Thus, the mission
of CDA is to reveal tactics that seem regular or neutral on the surface but may
be ideological and seek to alter the portrayal of events and people for certain
objectives (Mayr & Machin, 2012).
Scholars have suggested that language derives its power from the way it is
used, depending on who uses it and in what context (Wodak, 2001). CDA
focuses largely on how social power abuse and inequality are enacted, repro-
duced, legitimized, and resisted through text and speaking in a given social
and political environment (van Dijk, 2015). Discourses mirror social practices
and are essential for the constitution of power seeking to achieve certain goals
 Critical discourse analysis 31

(Sengul, 2019). Therefore, language should not be analysed separate to the

context of the social practices of which it is part (Fairclough, 2015). CDA
considers the general context of the text together with the specifc words.
Classic CDA addresses areas such as political and ideological discourse (e.g.
Chaney & Wincott, 2014; Chiapello & Fairclough, 2013), racism (e.g. Tro-
chmann et al., 2022) and immigration (e.g. Huot et al., 2016), economic
topics (e.g. Smith-Carrier & Lawlor, 2017), globalization (e.g. Tamatea et al.,
2008), marketization (e.g. Teo & Ren, 2019), gender (e.g. Yu & Sui, 2022),
the institutional discourse of professions (e.g. Annandale & Hammarström,
2011), and education (e.g. Lim, 2014). In all these areas, CDA focuses on
power asymmetries, exploitation, manipulation, and structural inequalities.
The goal of CDA is to disseminate information that empowers individuals to
free themselves from oppression by introspection and self-awareness (Mul-
let, 2018; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). The idea of power, or the possibility that
individuals in a social connection may carry out their own will in the face of
resistance from others, is crucial to CDA (Mullet, 2018).
CDA is situated within critical social science. It has been strongly infu-
enced by critical social theory (O’Regan, 2006). It relies on a range of critical
social theorists, including Foucault, Bourdieu, and Gramsci, especially in the
way they conceptualize power (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000). These authors
have infuenced the notion of discourse as a mechanism in the construction
of social reality as well as the understanding of the role of discourse as both a
product and a producer of social actions (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Smith,
2007). Thus, the critical discourse analyst assumes that language is performa-
tive, always engaging in action that has consequences (whether intended or
not) (Lester et al., 2016).
The development of CDA was greatly advanced by the work of leading
researchers such as Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, and Teun van Dijk, who
remain its most important proponents (e.g. Fairclough, 1992, 2010, 2013b,
2015; Wodak, 2001; Wodak & Meyer, 2009; van Dijk, 1999, 2015). In gen-
eral, most CDA frameworks are characterized by problem-oriented approaches;
the idea that discourse is situated in time and place; and the idea that language
expressions are never neutral (van Dijk, 1993; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). CDA
frameworks are informed by a diverse range of theories, from the micro level,
which addresses functional linguistics and ofers insights into the ideologi-
cal characteristics of written texts (Kress, 1990), to the macro-level cognitive
approaches that examine the underlying conceptual processes invoked by low-
level lexico-grammatical structures in discourse (Hart et al., 2005).
Various methodologies play a role in contributing to CDA, including lin-
guistics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, cognitive psychology, and conversation
analysis (Hart & Cap, 2014). CDA works at both theoretical and method-
ological levels, challenging research approaches that emphasize exclusively
32 Izhak Berkovich and Pascale Benoliel

theory or method (Sengul, 2019). For example, van Dijk’s socio-cognitive

approach to CDA combines theories and methods by using text and cognitive
linguistics to explore how mental models and social cognition afect the man-
ner in which people comprehend and use language in certain social circum-
stances (van Dijk, 2017).
Although CDA usually adopts an inductive analysis approach (i.e. identi-
fying patterns in the data to develop a general theory or explanation), it can
also proceed through abductive inference (i.e. logical reasoning that is used
to explain observations or phenomena) or transductive inference (i.e. mak-
ing predictions based on the patterns learned from the data) (Fairclough,
2015; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Moreover, the analysis alternates between
focusing on structure and emphasizing action (Fairclough, 2015; Wodak &
Meyer, 2009). The analysis techniques used in CDA are often hermeneu-
tic or interpretative, and they strive to provide meaning (Wodak & Meyer,
2009).
The CDA literature ofers a limited discussion of standards that characterize
qualitative rigor. Most CDA methods agree on two standards of quality: com-
pleteness (the addition of further data does not lead to new discoveries) and
accessibility (the work is readable by the social groups under investigation)
(Mullet, 2018; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Some scholars (e.g. Smith, 2007)
have also suggested that qualitative trustworthiness strategies are relevant to
CDA: for example, subjectivity, which refects both the bias of the researcher
and the transparent acknowledgement of it, or the adequacy of interpretation,
which derives from repeated immersion in and engagement with texts (Mor-
row, 2005).
CDA has been criticized on the grounds that researchers’ biases and moti-
vations infuence the reading and interpretation of the texts analysed (Smith,
2007). This criticism has been levelled at other critical social scientists as well.
According to CDA scholars, the multiple interpretations of a text are not a
problem, but rather one of the key insights gained through the CDA approach
(Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Smith, 2007). These scholars have argued
that texts can be understood and interpreted in diferent ways, depending on
the characteristics of the text itself and of the person interpreting it. These
characteristics may include the social positioning, expertise, values, and other
factors of the interpreter (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). In other words,
CDA suggests that the way a text is understood is determined exclusively not
only by the text itself but also by the context in which it is being interpreted
and the characteristics of the person interpreting it. Moreover, CDA involves
researchers committing to the emancipatory goals of critical research, rejecting
value-free objectivity, and advocating for marginalized groups. It also involves
ethical standards, such as transparency of research interests, values, and posi-
tions, without apology (Bergvall & Remlinger, 1996; Wodak & Meyer, 2009).
 Critical discourse analysis 33

Practical steps in the CDA process

Mullet (2018) provides an overview of the stages that guide CDA studies.
First, select a topic that addresses injustice or inequality in society. Second, fnd
and prepare the data sources for analysis. Third, analyse the social and histori-
cal settings of each text as well as its authors. Fourth, identify underlying ideas
and code the text. Fifth, examine the external relationships (interdiscursivity)
of the text, the social relationships that shape its creation, and how they afect
social practices and structures. Sixth, examine the internal workings (e.g. rep-
resentations, speaker’s positionality, goals) of the text. Seventh, describe the
themes and interpret their meanings.
In this chapter, we focus on Norman Fairclough’s (1992, 2003, 2010)
three-dimensional framework for CDA, which is not only widely popular but
also highly structured, providing an excellent applicative architecture for those
wishing to develop CDA sensitivity and capabilities. Fairclough’s (1992, 2003,
2010) CDA framework can be applied in a wide range of critical educational
studies and education policy research. The framework consists of three inter-
connected analytical processes associated with three dimensions of discourse
(Fairclough, 1992, 2003, 2010): (a) discourse as text – the object of analysis
(including oral texts, graphic text, or both); (b) discourse as discursive practice –
how the object is shaped (written, talked about, or created) and accepted by
people (read, attended, or watched); and (c) the socio-historical circumstances
that direct these processes. Each element requires a diferent type of analysis:
(a) textual (description); (b) processing (interpretation); and (c) socio-cultural
(elucidation). Each dimension is treated separately.

Level one: textual analysis

The textual analysis focuses on discourse-as-text, which refers to the linguistic
aspects and the organization of concrete text (Fairclough, 1992, 2003, 2010).
Text is considered as the inscribed or verbal language formed in a discursive
event. This level addresses the subtleties of the text: how it is shaped, and what
vocabulary and style are used to create meaning (see Halliday, 1985; Janks,
1997). CDA analyses methodically the choice and patterns of vocabulary
(e.g. word choice, poetical and rhetorical fgures of speech), grammar (e.g.
the expression of possibility and necessity, in other words, modality), cohe-
sion (e.g. cohesive devices, that is, words that connect ideas between diferent
parts of the text, connectors such as “so” or “because”), consistency (e.g.
conjunction, reader’s linguistic background knowledge, i.e., schemata), and
text structure (e.g. episode formation, turn-taking system). It also examines
systematically: (a) lexicalization (adding words to the lexicon), (b) transitivity
patterns (verbs that connect actors and objects), (c) use of passive and active
voice, (d) use of nominalization (nouns that are created from adjectives that
34 Izhak Berkovich and Pascale Benoliel

describe nouns or action verbs, for example, “authorization,” which emerged

from the verb “authorize”), (e) choice of mood, (f) choice of polarity (the
distinction between positive and negative forms, using words such as “some”
or “unfortunately”), (g) thematic structure, and (h) information focus. There
are several ways that an early career researcher may develop the abilities needed
for textual analysis, such as attending workshops on CDA or linguistics, read-
ing the relevant literature (e.g. Halliday’s (1985) book An Introduction to
Functional Grammar), and working through examples in papers or textbooks.

Level two: processing analysis

The processing analysis focuses on discourse-as-discursive-practice. Fairclough
(1992, 2003, 2010) defned discourse practice analysis as the examination
of the production, circulation, and consumption of a text in a given soci-
ety. “Discourse practice” describes the way texts are produced, the rules that
govern the use of language, how texts are disseminated, how they are read,
and by whom (Fairclough, 1992). Discourse practice level analysis studies the
history and practices related to the medium by which the text is presented.
The situational and intertextual context is key to interpretation (Fairclough,
1992). Situational context depends on time and place. Relevant questions are
as follows (Janks, 1997): could this text have been written before a given
year? Could this text have been produced in a diferent socio-political period
or another country? What factors afected its production and interpretation?
Novice researchers may follow diferent paths to develop the skills needed to
study the history and situated practices related to a given text and the medium
in which it is presented. These include attending courses in media and cultural
studies and seeking additional sources of information, such as literature or
interviews with individuals who have knowledge about the historical and situ-
ated contexts of the text.

Level three: socio-cultural analysis

The socio-cultural analysis focuses on discourse-as-social-practice that exam-
ines the ideological efects and hegemonic processes in which discourse plays
a role (Fairclough, 1992, 2003, 2010). The sociocultural level of analysis
examines the social context in which the text is produced, to assess the text
in its original setting. It links the language of the text to the manifestations
of power and ideology more broadly (Fairclough, 1992, 2003, 2010). The
context consists of a web of practices that emerge from a historical, political,
organizational, economic, and social environment (Fairclough, 1992, 2003,
2010). The sociocultural level afects how the text is produced and received,
and what it contains. The analysis examines the hegemonic powers and
 Critical discourse analysis 35

ideologies that dominate the sociocultural context, which afects the depic-
tion of the identities and institutions discussed in the text. How discourse is
represented, re-spoken, or re-written sheds light on the emergence of new
orders of discourse and scufes over what counts as social normal and good
eforts to govern and resistance to regimes of power (Blommaert & Bulcaen,
2000). Classic hegemonic sociocultural processes identifed by Fairclough’s
CDA approach include democratization, commodifcation, and technologi-
zation. To develop sensitivity to the manner in which power and ideology
manifest in society, there are several things an emerging researcher can do:
educate oneself about these topics by attending courses and reading the lit-
erature, paying attention to the ways in which the topics manifest in the world
(e.g. in the media, social interactions, institutions), and refecting on one’s
experiences and how power and ideology have afected one’s life and the lives
of those around them.

Examples of CDA in practice

The following examples show a range of CDA techniques and linguistic or rhe-
torical elements taken from one of our papers (Berkovich & Benoliel, 2020a)
analysing the discourse of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). Our CDA sheds light on how OECD leaders seek
to mould common beliefs in the discourse on teacher quality. International
organizations play a leading role in the global education policy discourse that
is shaped, among others, by their standardized cross-country evaluation of
national education policies and outcomes. Among these international organi-
zations, the OECD is clearly the most important agency in the developed
world. Participation in the worldwide testing and assessment programmes
of the OECD, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA), has become prevalent. The OECD has also established indicators of
ideal teaching practices and created the Teaching and Learning International
Survey (TALIS) framework for assessing them, with a focus on teacher beliefs,
attitudes, and practices. We used CDA to examine the forewords of TALIS
documents authored by OECD leaders, which we argue contain meanings
related to the discourse of the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM)
(Sahlberg, 2006). The main characteristics of GERM include increased stand-
ardization of schooling, curriculum focused on core knowledge and subjects,
increase in high-stake accountability, and the application of business manage-
ment practices in education. The analysis below is based on the three lev-
els of Fairclough’s CDA approach. The following examples aim to serve as a
guide for researchers wanting to apply CDA to policy material. The analysis of
OECD texts serves emancipatory purposes by revealing the ideological social
construction of ideal 21st-century education and the manner in which it serves
36 Izhak Berkovich and Pascale Benoliel

to promote global homogeneity of schooling policies and structures (Beno-

liel & Berkovich, 2021; Berkovich & Benoliel, 2020b). These educational
goals are consistent with the culture of Anglo countries and ignore the links
to local culture and history at the periphery of the global power structure (e.g.
Berkovich & Benoliel, 2020a; Lingard & Lewis, 2016).

Example of Fairclough’s CDA at the textual level

We explored the argumentative subsections that predominate in the forewords
of OECD documents and found a problem–solution structure pertaining to
the policy issue of (low) teacher quality. The prototypical outline at the basis
of such a structure includes multiple aspects such as goal, problem, solution,
and assessment of solution (Fairclough, 2015). But the forewords focus exclu-
sively on the frst three aspects: goal, problem, and solution, omitting the
evaluation of the solution. This means that the texts do not ofer any way to
gauge the solution ofered by OECD policy to (low) teacher quality. Analy-
sis shows that the argumentative subsections of the documents contain long
compound sentences. The sentences are written in a declarative tone and use
modal verbs that imply necessity, such as “may need” and “will demand.” The
present continuous tense is frequently used in the texts to emphasize cur-
rent processes (e.g. “facing,” “increasing,” “chancing,” “looking,” “growing,”
and “struggling”). One text on traditional school systems stated that schools
“aren’t keeping up” with the fast-paced transformation. This linkage relates
conventional schooling systems to antiquated procedures. The “goings-on”
form is regarded as a potent transitive form. It conjures an image of ongoing
processes and asserts the reality of their occurrence. Consequently, the texts
portray a sense of disarray, bordering on loss of control.
Analysis indicated another crucial semantic element, the binary framing
of teachers versus the OECD. In the examined texts, teachers are framed
as obstacles to reform, and their opposition is characterized as unimportant
and irrational. The description of the teachers not only shapes their image
but also serves to frame indirectly the OECD as their negative. The texts
state that teachers can serve as reformers and become “new professionals” if
they embrace the OECD perspective on teacher quality. This framing further
serves the OECD goal to legitimize its policies. One text states that because
the teaching profession lacks well-defned expectations of what teachers must
know and be able to do, teacher professionalism must be strengthened. This
suggests that teachers are a group of unskilled individuals who are staking a
false claim to the title of a profession. Another document specifcally questions
whether teachers’ pedagogical knowledge base is still in touch with societal
requirements. The texts subtly support a derogatory view of teacher expertise.
They use the term “high quality” to refer only to the absence of competent
teachers or instructional growth. Several cautions criticize the abilities and
 Critical discourse analysis 37

conduct of teachers. The need to create policies to make the teaching profes-
sion more attractive and more efective is illustrated by the fact that teachers
themselves are frequently not developing the techniques and abilities neces-
sary to address the diferent demands of present-day learners. The qualifers
“often” and “more” appear to restrict the generalizations but actually serve to
support the criticism.
In the texts, the OECD TALIS framework is presented as examining the
key characteristics of teachers, focusing on the pedagogical core of the teach-
ing profession and thus exploring the nature of teacher professionalism. In
this way, TALIS ostensibly does the professional thinking that teachers can-
not do. In one of the texts, TALIS assessment was indirectly compared to a
metaphorical camera (e.g. “true picture,” “see more clearly”) that records
education quality in high resolution. This metaphorical language highlights
the capacity of OECD to describe instruction and provide fresh insight into
it. The goal of all the instances described earlier is to establish a hierarchy of
expertise between the OECD and teachers. The texts aim to communicate
that the OECD has unique professional capital that defnes ideal teaching in
the 21st century.

Example of Fairclough’s CDA analysis at the discursive level

Typical texts containing GERM discourse usually refer to the self-improving
schooling system model, which has gained traction globally and has joined the
GERM global bundle of policy technologies in education. In the OECD texts,
we located words linked to self-development techniques, such as “responding”
and “improving,” used to express what schooling systems need to do. These
words co-occur in ways that indicate that such systems need to be changed. An
impassioned plea for change is coupled with apprehension about the unknow-
able future. For example, according to the texts, countries seek development
as a result of uncertainty brought by “challenges that intensify,” “demand
that continues to grow substantially,” and needed skill sets that continually
change. An example of over-lexicalization used to construct a certain depic-
tion of events is the wordy vocabulary surrounding the concept of change
and the numerous repeats. Change is portrayed as urgently needed but falling
behind the fast-moving dynamics of events (e.g. “need to keep up,” “demand
in this rapidly changing world”) and in short supply.
The materials also refect the rhetoric of “empowerment” that is expressly
aimed at teachers. Reverse presentations are used in OECD documents on
TALIS, as the texts switch the roles of systems (and particularly policymakers)
and teachers. According to one source, “educational systems and teachers” are
both equally important to the forthcoming changes. The conjunction “and”
implies a resemblance in the unit of analysis, with both being presented as supra-
organizational authorities that can manage and supervise several organizations
38 Izhak Berkovich and Pascale Benoliel

and are in charge of what happens within them. When systems and teachers
are mentioned together in other TALIS documents, it becomes clear that the
analogy does not ft into a collaborative model of work but rather a difer-
entiated one. Whereas systems typically ofer “efective support” or “enable
teachers,” teachers and principals “have the authority to act.” Because GERM
rhetoric holds that authority is either “here or there” (for instance, centralized
in the government or dispersed among various actors), it is possible to criticize
the teachers’ empowerment discourse in the TALIS texts. Critical scholars,
such as Foucault, argued that power is typically concentrated within institu-
tions and closely tied to prevailing power structures and hegemonic systems.
Therefore, we argue that the OECD’s focus on the individual as the site of
empowerment (i.e. teacher) defects attention from oppressive systems like the
state and global capitalism that have cardinal responsibility for the functioning
and quality of public education.

Example of Fairclough’s CDA analysis at the sociocultural level

The economic discourse is dominant in the OECD documents analysed. A term
used in economics to describe output capacity is “efectiveness.” Efectiveness
is a crucial value in the TALIS texts, which creates a logical sequence of actions
that teachers take in education systems. Efective policy responses, particularly
in the area of “efective teacher policies” that help “teachers enhance their per-
formance and efectiveness”, are advocated for the sake of “efective learning.”
Moreover, “efective support systems” for teachers “improve the efectiveness
of the teaching profession,” enabling teachers to create more “efective learn-
ing opportunities.” This series of activities is related to the principle of human
capital, and in it, teachers are seen as a key mechanism. The texts declare
that countries must prepare students to work successfully in modern econo-
mies by equipping students with high-level skills. There is a noticeable indirect
construction of contemporary social requirements as primarily economical.
As a result, the OECD recasts teachers in a signifcant way as “servants of the
global economy.” It portrays teachers as the key component of the OECD
solution, which enables nations to successfully compete economically on the
world stage.
The importance of the knowledge economy in the TALIS documents is
linked to both social and institutional facets of the degraded status of public
education. Initially, in the mid-20th century, the “knowledge economy” dis-
course was connected with science-based/technology-based sectors and man-
agement approaches that prioritized ongoing learning and innovation. The
word “knowledge” has various connotations in OECD texts. It is used to
describe data or inventions produced by systems. It represents more than just
economic output; it also represents regulation or a lack thereof. The OECD
connects wealth with knowledge in the phrase “in modern knowledge-based
 Critical discourse analysis 39

economies.” At the same time, it encourages the formulation of “knowledge-

rich” data-driven schooling systems and emphasizes the connection between
economic growth and the monitoring of education. Thus, when used in rela-
tion to education, the term “knowledge” takes on the sense of “regulation,”
which is required to realize the promise of economic output. Therefore, the
efectiveness of teacher competence and behaviour is closely regulated and
monitored, which many people believe promotes increased technical and pro-
fessional knowledge. TALIS, a technology made for knowledge-based regula-
tion, can be used to implement this form of control. In summary, social and
structural analysis reveals that in OECD texts, the language used to discuss
teacher quality reinforces negative stereotypes about public education and that
discourse related to knowledge based on assessments of “ideal” teachers and
teaching are used to criticize and devalue the work of practising public school
teachers. The link is founded on the development of the knowledge economy
and is made necessary by the signifcance and efcacy of the economic agenda
in education.

Concluding remarks
This chapter has aimed to provide an overview of the CDA methodology, its
goals, and the types of subjects it handles. It has also described the method
of Norman Fairclough, one of the best-known CDA scholars, and provided
examples of the analytical method in action. In this fnal section, we outline
some potential future avenues for the application of CDA in the study of edu-
cational policy. First, with the rise of the hyper-partisan policy environment
in many Western democracies, CDA can be a powerful method in separating
anti-factual rhetoric from policy issues (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Second,
in light of the dominance of accountability (and public crisis) discourses in
21st-century education policy, CDA can be instrumental in illuminating anti-
public eforts (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017) and the role of policy actors in
education, specifcally international agencies in cultivating accountability and
crisis ideas (Berkovich & Benoliel, 2020a, 2020b). Third, CDA can help bet-
ter understand contemporary digital media communication policies in edu-
cation and shed light on how ideologies are refected and served in the way
actors use a vast array of multimodal resources made available by digital tech-
nologies to communicate policies or implement them (Bou-Franch & Blitvich,
2019). Fourth, CDA can help explain how language and discourse are used
by educational policy actors to describe, hide, and aid in the resolution of
environmental issues (Fill & Penz, 2017). Using CDA, researchers studying
educational policy can look at both the macro and micro levels of policy. CDA
can be used to challenge widely held notions about policy problems, ofer
alternate perspectives, and pinpoint underlying inequities in policy knowledge
and implementation (Fairclough, 2013a; Lester et al., 2016).
40 Izhak Berkovich and Pascale Benoliel

References
Annandale, E., & Hammarström, A. (2011). Constructing the ‘gender-specifc
body’: A critical discourse analysis of publications in the feld of gender-specifc
medicine. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(6), 571–587. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1363459310364157
Arce-Trigatti, A., & Anderson, A. (2020). Defning diversity: A critical discourse analy-
sis of public educational texts. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Educa-
tion, 41(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1462575
Barrett, B., & Bound, A. M. (2015). A critical discourse analysis of No Promo Homo
policies in US Schools. Educational Studies, 51(4), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00131946.2015.1052445
Benoliel, P., & Berkovich, I. (2021). Ideal teachers according to TALIS: Societal
orientations of education and the global diagnosis of teacher self-efcacy. Euro-
pean Educational Research Journal, 20(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1474904120964309
Bergvall, V. L., & Remlinger, K. A. (1996). Reproduction, resistance and gender in
educational discourse: The role of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society,
7(4), 453–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007004002
Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2019). Understanding OECD representations of teachers
and teaching: A visual discourse analysis of covers in OECD documents. Globalisa-
tion, Societies and Education, 17(2), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/147677
24.2018.1525281
Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2020a). Marketing teacher quality: Critical discourse
analysis of OECD documents on efective teaching and TALIS. Critical Studies in
Education, 61(4), 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2018.1521338
Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2020b). The educational aims of the OECD in its TALIS
insight and lesson reports: Exploring societal orientations. Critical Studies in Edu-
cation, 61(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1370428
Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 29(1), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447
Bou-Franch, P., & Blitvich, P. G.-C. (Eds.). (2019). Analyzing digital discourse: New
insights and future directions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
92663-6
Chaney, P., & Wincott, D. (2014). Envisioning the third sector’s welfare role: Critical
discourse analysis of ‘post-devolution’ public policy in the UK 1998–2012. Social
Policy & Administration, 48(7), 757–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12062
Chiapello, E., & Fairclough, N. (2013). Understanding the new management ideol-
ogy. A transdisciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and the new
sociology of capitalism. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis (pp. 255–
280). Routledge.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking criti-
cal discourse analysis. Edinburgh University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Rout-
ledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd
ed.). Routledge.
 Critical discourse analysis 41

Fairclough, N. (2013a). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical
Policy Studies, 7(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239
Fairclough, N. (2013b). Critical discourse analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.
4324/9781315834368
Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Fill, A. F., & Penz, H. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of ecolinguistics. Rout-
ledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687391
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.
Hart, C., & Cap, P. (2014). Introduction. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary
critical discourse studies. Bloomsbury.
Hart, C., Rymes, B., Souto-Manning, M., Brown, C., & Luke, A. (2005). Analysing
political discourse: Toward a cognitive approach. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2),
189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900500283706
Huot, S., Bobadilla, A., Bailliard, A., & Laliberte Rudman, D. (2016). Constructing
undesirables: A critical discourse analysis of ‘othering’ within the Protecting Cana-
da’s Immigration System Act. International Migration, 54(2), 131–143. https://
doi.org/10.1111/imig.12210
Janks, H. (1997). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse: Studies in the Cul-
tural Politics of Education, 18(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596309
70180302
Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11,
84–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500001975
Lester, J. N., Lochmiller, C. R., & Gabriel, R. (2016). Locating and applying critical
discourse analysis within education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24,
102. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2768
Liasidou, A. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and inclusive educational policies:
The power to exclude. Journal of Education Policy, 23(5), 483–500. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02680930802148933
Lim, L. (2014). Ideology, rationality and reproduction in education: A critical dis-
course analysis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1),
61–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.739467
Lingard, B., & Lewis, S. (2016). Globalisation of the Anglo-American approach to
top-down, testbased educational accountability. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Har-
ris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 387–403).
Routledge.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). Future directions for education policy
research and language-based methods. In J. N. Lester, C. R. Lochmiller, & R.
E. Gabriel (Eds.), Discursive perspectives on education policy and implementation
(pp. 241–252). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58984-8_12
Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse
analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167278
Mayr, A., & Machin, D. (2012). The language of crime and deviance. Continuum.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in coun-
seling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
Mullet, D. R. (2018). A general critical discourse analysis framework for educa-
tional research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 29(2), 116–142. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1932202X18758260
42 Izhak Berkovich and Pascale Benoliel

O’Regan, J. P. (2006). The text as a critical object: On theorising exegetic procedure

in classroom-based critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 3(2), 179–
209. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900600908111
Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (2005).
Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 75(3), 365–416. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003365
Rogers, R., & Schaenen, I. (2014). Critical discourse analysis in literacy education:
A review of the literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1), 121–143. https://
doi.org/10.1002/rrq.61
Rogers, R., Schaenen, I., Schott, C., O’Brien, K., Trigos-Carrillo, L., Starkey, K., &
Chasteen, C. C. (2016). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the
literature, 2004 to 2012. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1192–1226.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316628993
Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. Jour-
nal of Educational Change, 7(4), 259–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-
005-4884-6
Sengul, K. (2019). Critical discourse analysis in political communication research: A case
study of right-wing populist discourse in Australia. Communication Research and
Practice, 5(4), 376–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2019.1695082
Sharma, A., & Buxton, C. A. (2015). Human-nature relationships in school science:
A critical discourse analysis of a middle-grade science textbook: Human-nature
relationships in school science. Science Education, 99(2), 260–281. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.21147
Smith, J. L. (2007). Critical discourse analysis for nursing research. Nursing Inquiry,
14(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.2007.00355.x
Smith-Carrier, T., & Lawlor, A. (2017). Realising our (neoliberal) potential? A critical
discourse analysis of the Poverty Reduction Strategy in Ontario, Canada. Critical
Social Policy, 37(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018316666251
Tamatea, L., Hardy, J., & Ninnes, P. (2008). Paradoxical inscriptions of global sub-
jects: Critical discourse analysis of international schools’ websites in the Asia–
Pacifc Region. Critical Studies in Education, 49(2), 157–170. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17508480802040241
Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: Using
critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433–451. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0268093042000227483
Teo, P., & Ren, S. (2019). Marketization of universities in China: A critical discourse
analysis of the university president’s message. Discourse & Communication, 13(5),
539–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481319856203
Trochmann, M. B., Viswanath, S., Puello, S., & Larson, S. J. (2022). Resistance or
reinforcement? A critical discourse analysis of racism and anti-Blackness in pub-
lic administration scholarship. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 44(2), 158–177.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2021.1918990
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society,
4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
van Dijk, T. A. (1999). Discourse and the denial of racism. In A. Jaworski & N. Cou-
pland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 541–558). Routledge.
van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, &
D. Schifrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 466–485). John
Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch22
 Critical discourse analysis 43

van Dijk, T. A. (2017). Socio-cognitive discourse studies. In J. Flowerdew & J. E.

Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 26–43).
Routledge.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (Eds.). (2001). Discourse theory and practice:
A reader. SAGE.
Wilson, T. S., & Carlsen, R. L. (2016). School marketing as a sorting mechanism:
A critical discourse analysis of charter school websites. Peabody Journal of Educa-
tion, 91(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1119564
Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). SAGE.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods for critical discourse analysis. SAGE.
Yu, Y., & Sui, H. (2022). The anxiety over soft masculinity: A critical discourse analy-
sis of the “prevention of feminisation of male teenagers” debate in the Chinese-
language news media. Feminist Media Studies, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1
4680777.2022.2046124