We often think of policy as a straightforward set of rules, handed down from on high to be implemented without question. But what if I told you that policies are far more complex, dynamic, and even subtle than that? In the world of policy studies, particularly influenced by sociologists like Stephen Ball, we understand policy through two powerful, interconnected lenses: Policy as Text and Policy as Discourse.

Understanding these two concepts is crucial for anyone involved in policy – from the policymakers themselves to the practitioners on the ground, and especially for those of us trying to make sense of the real-world impact of decisions made far away.

Policy as Text: The “Agency” of Interpretation
Imagine a new education policy lands on your desk. It’s a physical document: perhaps a memo, a white paper, or a detailed legislative act. This is policy as text.
At first glance, it seems simple. These are the words, the rules, the official pronouncements. But here’s the crucial insight: texts are rarely perfectly clear, unambiguous, or universally understood.

• A Product of Compromise: Policy texts aren’t written by a single, omniscient author. They are often the result of heated debates, compromises, and negotiations between various interest groups, political factions, and stakeholders. This means they can be messy, contain contradictions, and often leave gaps or ambiguities.
• Decoding and Interpretation: Because of this inherent complexity, policy texts must be “decoded” by those who receive them. A school principal, a teacher, a healthcare worker – they don’t just passively receive the text. They actively interpret it through the lens of their own context, experience, values, and history. They might adapt it, subvert it, or even resist it.
• The Power of Agency: This perspective emphasizes agency. It recognizes that the people on the receiving end of policy are not just cogs in a machine. They are “writerly readers” who translate the written policy into actual practice, making choices that shape its real-world manifestation. The policy “on paper” is rarely identical to the policy “in practice.”
  Think of a recipe. The written ingredients and instructions are the text. But how you interpret “a pinch of salt,” the heat of your oven, or the quality of your ingredients ultimately shapes the final dish. Your agency makes the recipe unique.

Policy as Discourse: The “Constraint” of What Can Be Thought and Said
Now, let’s zoom out. Beyond the specific words on the page, how does policy shape the very way we think and talk about an issue? This is where policy as discourse comes in, heavily influenced by the ideas of Michel Foucault.
Discourse is a broader, more pervasive concept. It refers to the systems of thought, language, and knowledge that define what is “thinkable,” “sayable,” and “doable” within a particular domain.

• Defining Reality: Policy discourse doesn’t just describe reality; it actively helps to construct it. It sets the boundaries of the debate. For example, if a dominant policy discourse frames education primarily in terms of “economic competitiveness” or “standardized test scores,” it becomes incredibly difficult to argue for the value of creative arts, social-emotional learning, or lifelong personal development outside of those parameters.
• Positioning the “Subject”: Discourse doesn’t just influence what we say; it also shapes who we are within that system. It creates “subject positions” that we are encouraged to inhabit. Think of the “performing teacher,” the “consumer student,” or the “accountable administrator.” These are roles defined by the prevailing discourse, and we often step into them without fully realizing the constraints they impose.
• The Power of Constraint: This perspective highlights constraint. Unlike the agency emphasized in “policy as text,” discourse suggests that our very ability to interpret or respond to policy is shaped by the language, categories, and frameworks that the discourse makes available to us. We might think we’re making free choices, but often those choices are predetermined by the discursive field we operate within.
  Imagine a political debate where only two solutions are presented as viable options. Even if you disagree with both, the discourse has already limited the scope of what is considered a legitimate solution. You’re operating within a constrained field of possibilities.
  Why This Distinction Matters
  For researchers, policymakers, and practitioners alike, grasping the difference between policy as text and policy as discourse is incredibly powerful:
• For Researchers: It allows for a much richer analysis, moving beyond just what a policy says to explore what it does to individuals and society, and how it shapes the very landscape of debate.
• For Policymakers: It encourages reflexivity – understanding that their “text” will be interpreted in diverse ways, and that the language they use contributes to broader discourses that can have profound, often unintended, consequences.
• For Practitioners: It empowers them to see beyond the surface rules. They can critically analyze how policies are not just guiding their actions, but also shaping their professional identity and the fundamental purpose of their work.
• They can ask: “Whose interests does this policy text serve?” and “What ideas does this policy discourse make dominant (or invisible)?”
  In essence, policies are not inert documents. They are living, breathing entities – sometimes a direct instruction to be interpreted, other times an invisible force shaping our very thoughts. By understanding both the text and the discourse, we gain a much deeper, more nuanced, and ultimately more effective grasp on the true power of policy.

Conclusion

Policy as Text: The text is a physical document, but when released/published it is then at the ‘mercy of its readers’. Local context, personal biases, and institutional histories act as filters, and practitioners translate and then enact the policy into a reality. At the school or classroom level policies are often re-created and ‘implemented’ in very ways different to those intended by the authors of the policy.

Policy as Discourse:  In contrast, Policy as Discourse constitutes the underlying power of those creating policies. Rather than simply a document, it is an instrument of power to be “believed, obeyed, respected, distinguished”. The Policy Discourse establishes the “boundaries of what is thinkable” within an institution/society. It functions as power by defining what is considered “normal” or “professional”.