Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Data Sources and Analytic Strategies
Textual Analysis: Rationalities of Reform
Discussion
References

Mobilizing Knowledge Through Partnerships

Profile image of Alison TaylorAlison Taylor

2010, Journal of Curriculum Theorizing

Abstract
sparkles

AI

The paper investigates the dynamics of policy reform in the context of research partnerships, particularly focusing on the role of knowledge and power structures influenced by Foucault's concept of governmentality. It critiques conventional views that assess policy outcomes merely as effective solutions to problems, instead framing reforms as events that reveal the complex interplay of power and knowledge. The study highlights how academic research rationalities and partnership technologies shape both the processes of governance and the identities of subjects within educational contexts.

Related papers

Shivani Shailja & Prof B.D. Pandey POWER AND KNOWLEDGE: FOUCAULT'S DISCOURSE ON REGULATION AND RESISTANCES
Shivani Shailja

POWER AND KNOWLEDGE: FOUCAULT'S DISCOURSE ON REGULATION AND RESISTANCES , 2024

Michel Foucault's exploration of power and knowledge is central to his philosophical framework. He argued that power is not simply a negative or repressive force but rather something that permeates all levels of society and is productive in nature. Foucault introduced the concept of "discourse" as systems of thought that produce knowledge and regulate social practices. Discourses are not just ways of speaking or writing but mechanisms through which power operates. They define what is considered true or false, normal or abnormal, thus shaping social norms and behaviours. Foucault's conception of power and knowledge offers a nuanced understanding of how social control operates through discourses and institutional practices, while also providing insights into strategies of resistance and the complexities of individual agency within power structures. His work like The Archaeology of Knowledge and Madness and Civilization continue to influence fields ranging from sociology and political theory to cultural studies and beyond. Discourses regulate knowledge by determining what counts as knowledge in a given context. They establish the boundaries of acceptable knowledge and exclude alternative perspectives or forms of knowledge. For example, scientific discourse defines what counts as valid scientific knowledge and excludes non-scientific ways of understanding the world. Foucault’s concept of discourse challenges to rethink how knowledge is produced, how power operates through knowledge, and how individuals are constituted within these processes. Foucault’s analysis of discourse encourages critical reflection on how knowledge and power are intertwined.

View PDFchevron_right
Constituting another Foucault effect: Foucault on states and statecraft (in Governmentality: Current issues and future challenges)
Bob Jessop

As Jacques Donzelot, a one-time collaborator of Foucault, notes, the Foucault effect has been particularly strong in the Anglo-phone world. Indeed the impact of his work on governmentality in this specific context might more properly be termed the “Anglo-Foucauldian effect” in order to distinguish it from the many other ways in which the work of Foucault and his French associates has affected philosophy, history, geography, and other branches of the arts, humanities, and social sciences at many times and places. As such, this effect refers to a particular mode of reception and appropriation of Foucault’s work on governmentality to generate a distinctive theoretical, epistemological, and methodological approach to empirical studies, both historical and contemporary, of various technologies and practices oriented to “the conduct of conduct”. Even in regard to this one aspect of his work, however, there are other “Foucault effects” grounded in different readings and appropriations of his work on governmentality in various countries (for work within this broader field, see, e.g., Agrawal 2006; Bröckling, Krasmann, and Lemke 2000; Dean 1999; Krasmann and Volkmer 2007; Meyet, Naves and Ribmont 2006; Opitz 2004; Sanyal 2007; Walters and Larner 2004; and the many contributions to Foucault Studies).

View PDFchevron_right
Foucault's new conceptualisation of power
Donnacha DeLong

An examination of the new conceptualisation of power offered in the work of Michel Foucault, highlighted by comparison with the work of Hannah Arendt.

View PDFchevron_right
The Development of Michel Foucault's Understanding of Power (Full Text)
Gökhan ERELİ

Development of the Michel Foucault's power formulations and techniques of power. First, sovereign power, Second, disciplinary power, third biopower and lastly governmentality.

View PDFchevron_right
The contingencies of power: reformulating Foucault
Nick Hardy

[This has just been published in the Journal of Political Power at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2158379X.2015.1099210?journalCode=rpow21 ] In a critique of Michel Foucault’s understanding of power relations, Andrew Sayer outlined an alternative that was both more conceptually rigorous and offered a clearer analytical framework with which to approach the analysis of power. Part of Sayer’s development was to distinguish not only between the holding and the operating of power(s), but also the three contingencies that always exist alongside power(s). The paper argues that Sayer’s critique of Foucault, while a welcome theoretical clarification, partially mistakes Foucault’s project (which was to analyse power ‘as is’, not power ‘in the abstract’) and also misses some of Foucault’s own clarifications to his understanding of power. The paper develops Sayer’s position by integrating important elements of Foucault’s approach – namely his concept of ‘dispositif’ – that illustrate Foucault’s more nuanced understanding of power. This is developed by arguing that there is, in fact, a fourth level of contingency that Sayer does not articulate. The paper uses De-facing Power, an early work of Clarissa Hayward, to illustrate how a combined ‘Foucaultian/Sayerian’ model of power and contingency can give extra explanatory and analytical strength. The outcome of the article’s argument is that contingency ceases to be a ‘problem’ in social scientific research; instead it becomes the raison d’être for social scientific explanation. Keywords: Andrew Sayer; contingency; critical realism; dispositif; Michel Foucault; power

View PDFchevron_right
Powers of freedom, governamentality and the psy knowledges: dialogues with Nikolas Rose (Part 2)
Sergio Resende Carvalho
View PDFchevron_right
Power and Knowledge
Garry Potter

Journal of Critical Realism, 2010

Introduction (1): Foucault Power-knowledge as a term was coined by Foucault to indicate the mutual imbrication of power and knowledge. Power and knowledge are jointly imbricated in institutional practices such that power is always involved with the production of knowledge and knowledge involved with the institutional exercise of power. This much the argument of this paper shares with Foucault. However, there are also many fundamental differences. The paper thus presents an implied critique of Foucault. It shall not be made explicit. Instead Foucault is left to function as the ghost that haunts this text. That I mention him at all is merely to give credit where credit is due and for readers of a more scholarly nature they can consider the Foucauldian concepts of genealogy, discursive formations, the double sense of discipline and the like, in terms of the Laclauian notion of a 'hauntology'. However, this paper will be more explicitly focused upon ontology and my own theorisiation of power knowledge.

View PDFchevron_right
Facets of Power: A Few Thoughts in Light of Marco Brigaglia's Analysis of Foucault
Corrado Roversi, Corrado Roversi

2022

There is a common distinction in the socio-philosophical literature between two kinds of power: normative and causal. According to a widespread and still dominant conception-normativistic legal positivism-law has to do with normative powers, not causal ones. I will try to argue that this rigid distinction between domains seriously undermines the possibility of having a comprehensive account of what institutions are. The ontology of legal institutions is based on a complex intertwining between normative and causal aspects; hence, an artificial split between these aspects cannot but lead to a seriously limited understanding of how institutions operate in regulating social behaviour. This I will show by reflecting upon what I take to be the most thorough, well-argued, and analytically deep treatment of the concept of power recently provided in Italian legal theory, namely, Marco Brigaglia's analysis of Michel Foucault in his recent Potere: Una rilettura di Michel Foucault (2019). The conclusion of my argument is that Foucault's conception of power-as analysed by Brigaglia-finds significant support from institutional ontology in showing that legal theory and legal science should broaden their focus when selecting relevant instances of power. But I will also show that jurists can teach social scientists to put up some boundaries by reflecting on the concept of intention and on the risk of hypostatizing it; otherwise the concept of power risks becoming too vague and opening the door for all manner of conspiracy theories and intentionalistic fallacies.

View PDFchevron_right
The Undercommons and Subjugated Knowledge: The Powers of Non-State Practices that Decolonize Knowledge
iris publishers

Iris Publishers LLC, 2019

In Michel Foucault’s work, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, I am interested in thinking about the relationship with his theory about power and knowledge. For Foucault, power and knowledge is within the “articulation of each other [1].” In this, there is a type of knowledge and hypervisibility that has a historical tone, and this feature is scientific [2]. For this essay I will summarize some of Foucault’s theories about power and knowledge, because it provides a pedagogy to think about the performative structure of knowledge. In that, there is a performance of power that upholds certain knowledge as important. Foucault’s argument that I am interested in are how the state produces discourse that is scientific and upheld socio-historically. More specifically, I am interested in his ideas about “subjugated knowledge,” because this can be either unconscious and ideological knowledge that is informed by history, or outside knowledge, non-state knowledges of everyday life and experience [3]. What I am really interested in for this critical response is to extend Foucault’s ideas about knowledge that is not seen as important to the state. In this essay, I put forth the following questions: How does the state evaluate knowledge as important? How can we think, and use knowledge outside of the sta

View PDFchevron_right
State, space and self: Poulantzas and Foucault on governmentality.
Christopher M. Green
View PDFchevron_right

References (56)

  1. Amit, V. (2000). The university as panopticon: Moral claims and attacks on academic freedom. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. (pp. 215-235). London: Routledge.
  2. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical post-structural approach. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
  3. Ball, S. J. (1999). Labour, learning and the economy: A 'policy sociology' perspective. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(2), 195-206.
  4. Ball, S. J. (2001). Performativities and fabrication in the education economy: Towards the performative society. In D. Gleeson & C. Husbands (Eds.), The performing school: Manag- ing teaching and learning in a performance culture. (pp. 210-226). London: RoutledgeFal- mer.
  5. Blackmore, J. (1988). Assessment and accountability. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
  6. Blackmore, J. (2002). Is it only 'what works' that 'counts' in new knowledge economies? Evidence-based practice, educational research and teacher education in Australia. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 257-266.
  7. Bratich, J. Z. (2003). Making politics reasonable: Conspiracism, subjectification, and governing through styles of thought. In J. A. Bratich, J. Packer, & C. McCarthy (Eds.), Foucault, cul- tural studies, and governmentality (pp. 67-100). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  8. Butterwick, S. (2006). Spider webs and wind storms: Reflections on a community-academic research partnership. Rethinking work and learning: Research findings and policy challenges (Plenary and workshop proceedings). Toronto: OISE/UT.
  9. Church, K. (2006). Learning the rules of engagement: Textual practices of power in a university- corporate partnership. Rethinking work and learning: Research findings and policy chal- lenges (Plenary and workshop proceedings). Toronto: OISE/UT.
  10. Codd, J., Harker, R., & Nash, R. (1990). Education, politics and the economic crisis. In J. Codd, R. Harker, & R. Nash (Eds.), Political issues in New Zealand education (2 nd ed.) (pp. 7-21). Palmerston North, New Zealand: The Dunmore Press.
  11. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage Publica- tions.
  12. Fennessy, K., Billett, S., & Ovens, C. (2006). Learning in and through social partnerships. Australian Journal of Adult Education, 46(1), 9-27.
  13. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality volume 1: An introduction. New York: Vintage Books.
  14. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87-104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books. Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 1-51). Chicago: Universi- ty of Chicago Press.
  16. Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1987). The end of organized capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  17. Lingard, B. (2000). It is and it isn't: Vernacular globalization, educational policy, and restructur- ing.
  18. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspec- tives (pp. 79-108). New York: Routledge.
  19. Miller, P., & O'Leary, T. (1994). Governing the calculable person. In A. G. Hopwood & P. Miller (Eds.), Accounting as social and institutional practice (pp. 98-115). Cambridge, Eng- land: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1993). Governing economic life. In M. Gane & T. Johnson (Eds.), Foucault's new domains (pp. 75-105). London: Routledge.
  21. Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (2000). The state, globalization, and educational policy. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education: Critical perspectives (pp. 27- 56). New York: Routledge.
  22. Offe, C. (1984). Contradictions of the welfare state. London: Hutchinson.
  23. Olssen, M. Codd, J., & O'Neill, A. (2004). Education policy: Globalization, citizenship and democracy. London: Sage Publications.
  24. O'Malley, P. (2001). Genealogy, systematisation and resistance in "advanced liberalism." In G. Wickham & G. Pavlich (Eds.), Rethinking law, society and governance: Foucault's bequest (pp. 13-25). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  25. Ozga, J., Seddon, T., and Popkewitz, T. (2006). Introduction. In J. Ozga, T. Seddon, and T. Popkewitz (Eds), Education research and policy: Steering the knowledge-based economy. World Yearbook of Education 2006 (pp. 1-14). New York: Routledge.
  26. Ozga, J. & Jones, R. (2006). Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge transfer. Journal of Education Policy, 21(1), 1-17.
  27. Peters, M. (1996). Poststructuralism, politics and education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
  28. Peters, M., & Marshall, J. (1996). Individualism and community: Education and social policy in the postmodern condition. London: The Falmer Press.
  29. Popkewitz, T. S. (1998). Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construction of the teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
  30. Popkewitz, T. S. (2000). Reform. In D. A. Gabbard (Ed.) economy: Politics and the rhetoric of school reform Erlbaum. Popkewitz, T. S., & Brennan, M. (1998). Restructuring of social and political tion: Foucault and a social epistemology of school practices. In T. S. Popkewitz nan (Eds.), Foucault's challenge: Discourse, knowledge, and power in New York: Teachers College Press.
  31. Ranson, S. (2003). Public accountability in the age of neo tion Policy, 18(5), 459-480.
  32. Rose, N. (1996). Governing "advanced" liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo ernment (pp. 37-64). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  33. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought University Press.
  34. Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Policy archeology: A new policy studies methodology. Education Policy, 9(4), 297-
  35. Seddon, T., Billett, S., & Clemans, A. (2004). Politics of social partnerships: A framework for theorizing. Journal of Education Policy
  36. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Strathern (Ed.) ethics and the academy (pp. 57
  37. Shragge, E. (2006). Community university research partnerships: A critical reflection and an alternative experience. Rethinking work and learning: Research findings and policy cha lenges (Plenary and workshop proceedings). Toronto: OISE/UT.
  38. SSHRC. (April, 2002). A strategy for INE knowledge t Committee by SSHRC Knowledge Products and Mobilisation Division. Ottawa: SSHRC.
  39. SSHRC. (2004). From granting council to knowledge council: Renewing the Social Sciences Humanities in Canada. Consultation framework on SSHRC's transformation. SSHRC. SSHRC. (2005a, July). Knowledge Council: SSHRC Strategic Plan, 2006 SSHRC. SSHRC. (2005b, January). From granting council to knowledge council: Renewing the soci sciences and humanities in Canada
  40. Strathern, M. (2004). Laudible aims and problematic consequences, or: the 'flow' of knowledge is not neutral. Economy and Society Taylor, S., & Rizvi, F. (1997). ledge.
  41. Tett, L., Crowther, J. and O'Hara, P. (2003). Collaborative partnerships in community education. Journal of Education Policy, Thomson, P. (2006). Policy scholarship ag Popkewitz (Eds.), Education research and policy: Steering the knowledge World Yearbook of Education 2006
  42. Spencer & Taylor ♦ Mobilizing Knowledge Volume 26, Number 3, 2010
  43. S. (2000). Reform. In D. A. Gabbard (Ed.), Knowledge and power in the global economy: Politics and the rhetoric of school reform (pp. 33-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Popkewitz, T. S., & Brennan, M. (1998). Restructuring of social and political tion: Foucault and a social epistemology of school practices. In T. S. Popkewitz Foucault's challenge: Discourse, knowledge, and power in education New York: Teachers College Press. accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Educ , N. (1996). Governing "advanced" liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of 64). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge , J. J. (1994). Policy archeology: A new policy studies methodology. -316.
  44. Seddon, T., Billett, S., & Clemans, A. (2004). Politics of social partnerships: A framework for Journal of Education Policy, 19(2), 123-142.
  45. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in 57-89). London: Routledge.
  46. Shragge, E. (2006). Community university research partnerships: A critical reflection and an Rethinking work and learning: Research findings and policy cha (Plenary and workshop proceedings). Toronto: OISE/UT. A strategy for INE knowledge transfer, prepared for INE Advisory Committee by SSHRC Knowledge Products and Mobilisation Division. Ottawa: SSHRC. SSHRC. (2004). From granting council to knowledge council: Renewing the Social Sciences es in Canada. Consultation framework on SSHRC's transformation. Knowledge Council: SSHRC Strategic Plan, 2006
  47. From granting council to knowledge council: Renewing the soci sciences and humanities in Canada. Report on the consultations. Ottawa: SSHRC.
  48. Strathern, M. (2004). Laudible aims and problematic consequences, or: the 'flow' of knowledge Economy and Society, 33(4), 550-561. (1997). Educational policy and the politics of change
  49. Tett, L., Crowther, J. and O'Hara, P. (2003). Collaborative partnerships in community education. 18(1), 37-51.
  50. Thomson, P. (2006). Policy scholarship against de-politicisation. In J. Ozga, T. Seddon, and T. Education research and policy: Steering the knowledge Yearbook of Education 2006 (pp. 316-331). New York: Routledge. 60 Knowledge and power in the global 42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
  51. Popkewitz, T. S., & Brennan, M. (1998). Restructuring of social and political theory in educa- tion: Foucault and a social epistemology of school practices. In T. S. Popkewitz & M. Bren- ducation (pp. 3-35). Journal of Educa- , N. (1996). Governing "advanced" liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose sm and rationalities of Gov- . Cambridge: Cambridge , J. J. (1994). Policy archeology: A new policy studies methodology. Journal of
  52. Seddon, T., Billett, S., & Clemans, A. (2004). Politics of social partnerships: A framework for Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability,
  53. Shragge, E. (2006). Community university research partnerships: A critical reflection and an Rethinking work and learning: Research findings and policy chal- , prepared for INE Advisory Committee by SSHRC Knowledge Products and Mobilisation Division. Ottawa: SSHRC.
  54. SSHRC. (2004). From granting council to knowledge council: Renewing the Social Sciences and es in Canada. Consultation framework on SSHRC's transformation. Ottawa: Knowledge Council: SSHRC Strategic Plan, 2006-2011. Ottawa: From granting council to knowledge council: Renewing the social . Report on the consultations. Ottawa: SSHRC.
  55. Strathern, M. (2004). Laudible aims and problematic consequences, or: the 'flow' of knowledge Educational policy and the politics of change. London: Rout-
  56. Tett, L., Crowther, J. and O'Hara, P. (2003). Collaborative partnerships in community education. politicisation. In J. Ozga, T. Seddon, and T. Education research and policy: Steering the knowledge-based economy.

Related papers

Foucault on Power and Government
Paul Patton

Sociological Problems (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), Special Issue edited by Antoinette Koleva, Kolyo Koev, Michel Foucault: New Problematizations, 2016

Foucault’s lectures in 1976 open with the statement of an intellectual crisis. They proceed to a series of questions about the nature of power and the ways that he has conceived of it up to this point: what is power? How is it exercised? Is it ultimately a relation of force? Only some of these questions are answered in the course of these lectures. His answer to the conceptual questions about the nature of power and the appropriate means to analyze it is not forthcoming until after the discovery of ‘governmentality’ in 1978 and his lectures on liberal and neoliberal governmentality in 1979. This talk aims to retrace his answers to these questions in the light of the published lectures and to examine the consequences of these answers for his overall approach to the analysis power, and for his analysis of liberal and neoliberal governmental power.

View PDFchevron_right
Michel Foucault’s relationship between power and knowledge.
William Parsons

This essay analyses Foucault's revolutionary thought on power and knowledge, and their relationship in society. It first ascertains what Foucault means by 'power', i.e. its un-objectivity as 'force relations', to then uncover power's intrinsic relationship with knowledge, or rather 'systems of knowledge' in the form of discourse. Due to Foucault's very atypical, unconventional view on society, and power itself, this essay first ascertains what Foucault does not mean by 'power', as a means of separating any personal preconception the reader may have with Foucault's vision.

View PDFchevron_right
Foucault's Overarching Concept of Power as Governmentality
Torben Bech Dyrberg

2001

View PDFchevron_right
Foucault, Governmentality, Biopolitics – Analytical strategies for the critique of power
Mitchell Dean
View PDFchevron_right
An indigestible meal? Foucault, governmentality and state theory
Thomas Lemke

2007

This article explores the contribution of an ‘analytics of government’ to state theory. This approach takes up methodological and theoretical considerations that Michel Foucault developed in his lectures 0f1978 and 1979 at the College de France on the ‘history of “governmentality”’. The article argues that an analytics of government is characterized by three theoretical dimensions: a nominalist account that stresses the central importance of knowledge and political discourses in the constitution of the state; a broad concept of technology that encompasses not only material but also symbolic devices, including political technologies as well as technologies of the self; a strategic account that conceives of the state as an instrument and effect of political strategies. After presenting the three analytical dimensions, the last part of the article will compare this theoretical perspective with the concept of governance and with critical accounts of neo-liberalism. The article concludes that Foucault's work on governmentality opens up new directions for state theory.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved