Share This Article:

The Turn to Problematization: Political Implications of Contrasting Interpretive and Poststructural Adaptations

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:2728KB) PP. 1-12
DOI: 10.4236/ojps.2015.51001    3,358 Downloads   4,444 Views   Citations
Author(s)    Leave a comment


The purpose of this paper is to introduce and elaborate the varied meanings of problematization in contemporary policy theory. The primary focus is on the different meanings and uses of the term in interpretivism and in Foucault-influenced poststructuralism. The paper argues that interpretive/argumentative adaptations direct attention primarily to how policy makers/workers develop problematizations (ways of understanding a problem) while Foucault-influenced poststructuralists critically scrutinize problematizations (the ways in which “problems” are produced and represented) in governmental policies and practices. It concludes that Foucault-influenced adaptations provide a more substantive critique of extant social arrangements than interpretive approaches, which tend to be reformist in design and inclination.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Bacchi, C. (2015) The Turn to Problematization: Political Implications of Contrasting Interpretive and Poststructural Adaptations. Open Journal of Political Science, 5, 1-12. doi: 10.4236/ojps.2015.51001.


[1] Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating Research Questions through Problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36, 247-271.
[2] Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Constructing Research Questions: Doing Interesting Research. London: Sage.
[3] Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage.
[4] Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be? Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education.
[5] Bacchi, C. (2012). Why Study Problematization? Making Politics Visible. Open Journal of Political Science, 2, 1-8.
[6] Bacchi, C., & Rönnblom, M. (2014). Feminist Discursive Institutionalism—A Poststructural Alternative. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 22, 170-186.
[7] Burr, V. (2003). Social Constructionism (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
[8] Callon, M. (2009). Civilizing Markets: Carbon Trading between in Vitro and in Vivo Experiments. Accounting, Organization and Society, 34, 535-548.
[9] Colebatch, H. (2010). Giving Accounts of Policy. In H. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for Policy (pp. 31-43). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
[10] Colebatch, H., Hoppe, R., & Noordegraaf, M. (2010a). Preface. In H. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for Policy (pp. 8-9). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
[11] Colebatch, H., Hoppe, R., & Noordegraaf, M. (2010b). The Lessons for Policy Work. In H. Colebatch, R. Hoppe, & M. Noordegraaf (Eds.), Working for Policy (pp. 227-245). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
[12] Colebatch, H., Hoppe, R., & Noordegraaf, M. (Eds.). (2010). Working for Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
[13] Dean, M., & Hindess, B. (1998). Governing Australia: Studies in Contemporary Rationalities of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[14] Dery, D. (1984). Problem Definition in Policy Analysis. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
[15] Eribon, D. (1991). Michel Foucault. London: Faber and Faber.
[16] Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.
[17] Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7, 177-197.
[18] Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19] Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (Eds.) (2012). The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
[20] Fischer, F., & Mandell, A. (2012). Transformative Learning in Planning and Policy Deliberation: Probing Social Meaning and Tacit Assumptions. In F. Fischer, & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice (pp. 343-370). Durham: Duke University Press.
[21] Flynn, T. (2005). Sartre, Foucault, and Historical Reason: A Poststructuralist Mapping of History Vol. II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[22] Foucault, M. (1969). Pamphlet Submitted to Professors of the Collège de France. Cited in D. Eribon (1991) Michel Foucault (pp. 214-216). B. Wing (Trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[23] Foucault, M. (1984a). What Is Enlightenment? In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader (pp. 32-50). New York: Pantheon Books.
[24] Foucault, M. (1984b). A propos de la généalogie de l’éthique: Un apercu du travail en cours (Rewritten Version). Dits et Ecrits. Tome II (1994) (pp. 1428-1450). Paris: Gallimard.
[25] Foucault, M. (1986). The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality Vol. II. New York: Vintage.
[26] Foucault, M. (1994) [1981]. So Is It Important to Think? In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984 (Vol. 3, pp. 454-458). Trans. R. Hurley and Others, London: Penguin.
[27] Foucault, M. (2009). History of Madness. Trans. J. Khalfa. New York: Routledge.
[28] Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury.
[29] Freire, P. (1973). Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Seabury.
[30] Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London: Routledge.
[31] Glynos, J., Howarth, D., Norval, A., & Speed, E. (2009). Discourse Analysis: Varieties and Methods. Colchester: Centre for Theoretical Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Essex. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods; NCRM/014.
[32] Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (pp. 1-52). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[33] Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy Analysis, Science, and Politics: From “Speaking Truth to Power” to “Making Sense Together”. Science and Public Policy, 26, 201-210.
[34] Hoppe, R. (2002). Cultures of Public Policy Problems. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 4, 305-326.
[35] Hoppe, R. (2011). The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Power and Participation. Bristol: Policy Press.
[36] Howarth, D. (2013). Poststructuralism and After: Structure, Subjectivity and Power. Houndmills: Palgrave.
[37] Howarth, D., & Griggs, S. (2012). Poststructuralist Policy Analysis: Discourse, Hegemony, and Critical Explanation. In F. Fischer, & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice (pp. 305-342). Durham: Duke University Press.
[38] Howarth, D., Norval, A., & Stavrakakis, Y. (Eds.) (2000). Discourse Theory and Political Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
[39] Jones, A. (1997). Teaching Post-Structuralist Feminist Theory in Education: Student Resistances. Gender and Education, 9, 261-269.
[40] Koopman, C. (2011). Foucault and Pragmatism: Introductory Notes on Metaphilosophical Methodology. Foucault Studies, 11, 2-10.
[41] Koopman, C. (2013). Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the Problems of Modernity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
[42] Osborne, T. (1997). On Health and Statecraft. In A. Petersen, & R. Bunton (Eds.), Foucault, Health and Medicine (pp. 173-188). London: Routledge.
[43] Rabinow, P. (2012). How to Submit to Inquiry: Dewey and Foucault. The Pluralist, 7, 25-37.
[44] Rose, N. (2000). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (1st ed., 1999). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[45] Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43, 173-205.
[46] Sch?n, D. A. (1983). The Reflexive Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic.
[47] Shapiro, I. (2002). Problems, Methods, and Theories in the Study of Politics, or What’s Wrong with Political Science and What to Do about It. Political Theory, 30, 596-619.
[48] Tanesini, A. (1994). Whose Language? In K. Lennon, & M. Whitford (Eds.), Knowing the Difference: Feminist Perspectives in Epistemology (pp. 203-216). New York: Routledge.
[49] Thompson, K. (2010). Response to Colin Koopman’s “Historical Critique or Transcendental Critique in Foucault: Two Kantian Lineages”. Foucault Studies, 8, 122-128.
[50] Turnbull, N. (2005). Policy in Question: From Problem Solving to Problematology. Sydney: University of New South Wales.
[51] Turnbull, N. (2006). How Should We Theorize Public Policy? Problem Solving and Problematicity. Policy and Society, 25, 3-22.
[52] Turnbull, N. (2007). Introduction: Problematology: A New Paradigm for Thought. Revue internationale de philosophie, 4, 349-352.
[53] Turnbull, N. (2008). Legitimation in Terms of Questioning: Integrating Political Rhetoric and Sociology of Law. Workshop on Normative and Sociological Approaches to Legality and Legitimacy, O?ati, 24-25 April 2008, 1-29.
[54] Turnbull, N. (2014). Michael Meyer’s Problematology: Questioning and Society. London: Bloomsbury.
[55] Webb, P. T. (2014). Policy Problematization. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27, 364-376.
[56] Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist Practice and Post-Structuralist Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[57] Wildavsky, A. (1979). The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. London: Macmillan.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.