Holding policy-makers to account: Exploring 'soft' and 'hard' policy and the implications for curriculum reform

London Review of Education

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 41-54

  Kennedy, Kerry J ^a   Chan, Jacqueline Kin sang ^b   Fok, Ping Kwan ^b  

^a THE EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Curriculum implementation; Curriculum policy; Curriculum reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952494517     PISSN: 14748460     EISSN: 14748479     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14748460.2011.550433     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Abbott, K., and D. Snidal. 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization 54, no. 3: 421-56.
2. Adamson, B., and P. Morris. 2000. Changing Hong Kong's schools. In Changing the curriculum: The impact of reform on primary schooling in Hong Kong, ed. B. Adamson, T. Kwan, and K.K. Chan, 7-20. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
3. Ahonen, P. 2001. Soft governance, agile Union? - Analysis of the extensions of open coordination. Paper presented at the 9th NISPA Conference, May 10-12, in Riga, Latvia.
4. Aoki, T. 1984. Toward a reconceptualisation of curriuclum implementation. In Alternative perspectives on school improvement, ed. D. Hopkins, and M. Wieden, 107-118. London: Falmer Press.
5. Calista, D. 1994. Policy implementation. In Encyclopedia of policy studies, ed. S. Nagel, 117-58. New York: Marcel Dekker.
6. Chan, K.S.J., K. Kennedy, and P.K. Fok. 2008. 'Hard' and 'soft' policy for the school curriculum: The changing role of teachers in the 'Learning to learn' reform. In Developing teachers and developing schools in changing contexts, ed. J. Lee, L. Leslie, and S. Ling Po, 135-53. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
7. Cini, M. 2001. The soft law approach: Commission rule-making in the EU's state aid regime. Journal of European Public Policy 8, no. 2: 192-207.
8. Curriculum Development Council. 2001. Learning to learn: Lifelong learning and whole-person development. Hong Kong: The Printing Department.
9. deLeon, P., and L. deLeon. 2002. Whatever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of Public Administration. Research and Theory 12, no. 4: 467-92.
10. Education Commission. 2000. Learning for life, learning through life: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Printing Department.
11. Education Commission. 2002. Progress report on the education reform (1): Learning for life, Learning through life. Education Commission. http://www.e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/report_pdf_eng.html.
12. Education Commission. 2003. Progress report on the education reform (2): Learning for life, Learning through life. Education Commission. http://www.e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/progress_pdf_eng.htm.
13. Education Commission. 2004. Progress report on the education reform (3): Learning for life, Learning through life. Education Commission. http://www.e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/progress003_pdf_eng.html.
14. Education Department. 2002. Performance indicators for Hong Kong Schools. Hong Kong: Government Logistics Department.
15. Fischer, F. 1998. Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in postpositivist perspective. Policy Studies Journal 26, no. 1: 129-46.
16. Fok, P.K., K. Kennedy, and J.K.S. Chan. 2010. The use of 'hard' and 'soft' policy instruments to influence the implementation of curriculum reform: The case of 'project learning' in Hong Kong. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 5, no. 6: 1-14.
17. Fullan, M. 2001. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
18. Fullan, M., and A. Pomfret. 1977. Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research 47, no. 2: 335-97.
19. Fung Y.Y., S.Y. Leung, S.W. Wu, S.Y. Chan, and P.M. Chow. 1997. An evaluation on the current implementation of the activity approach in Hong Kong primary schools. In Compulsory and basic school education: System and curriculum, ed. H.W. Wong, 197-223. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. (In Chinese.)
20. Hanberger, A. 2001. What is the policy problem? Methodological challenges in policy evaluation. Evaluation 7, no. 1: 45-62.
21. Héritier, A. 2001. New modes of governance in Europe: Policy-making without legislating? Reihe Politikwissenschaft, Political Science Series. http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_81.pdf.
22. Hertin, J., F. Berkhout, D. Tyteca, and W. Wehrmeyer. 2003. Are soft policy instruments effective? Establishing the link between environmental management systems and the environmental performance of companies. Paper presented at the Berlin Conference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change, December 1-6, in Brighton, SPRU.
23. Hertin, J., F., Berkhout, M. Wagner, and D. Tyteca. 2004. Are 'soft' policy instruments effective? The link between environmental management systems and the environmental performance of companies (SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series No. 124). Falmer, Brighton: The Freeman Centre. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp124.pdf.
24. Hoffman, J. 1995. Implicit theories in policy discourse: An inquiry into the interpretations of reality in German technology policy. Policy Sciences 28: 127-48.
25. Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. 2010. Territory-wide system assessment 2010: Report on the basic competencies of students in Chinese language, English language and mathematics (Key Stages 1-3). Hong Kong: HKEAA.
26. Koulaimah-Gabriel, A., and A. Oomen. 1997. Improving coherence: Challenges for European development cooperation (Policy management brief no. 9). Maastricht: ECDPM.
27. Lam, C.C. 1996. Target oriented curriculum: An unreachable ideal. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkier/content/document/publications/occasional/index_policy.htm#1. (In Chinese.)
28. Lam, C.C. 2001. The proposed curriculum reform of Hong Kong: Full of contradictions, short of professionalism. Educational Research Journal 16, no. 1: 131-58. (In Chinese.)
29. Lam, C.C. 2004. Can the Hong Kong curriculum development system perform the function of developing a widely accepted value? In Re-conceptualization of curriculum reform, ed. Association for Research and Development of Teaching Materials, 69-80. Taipei: Association for Research and Development of Teaching Materials. (In Chinese.)
30. Lam, C.C., and S. Zhang. 2006. An analysis of the implementation strategies of Hong Kong curriculum reform. In The proceedings of the 8th Curriculum Studies Academic Conference for Mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong, ed. C.C. Zhong, and Y.K. Cui, 35-43. Hangzhou: Research Institute of Curriculum and Instruction, East China Normal University. (In Chinese.)
31. Lo, Y.C. 1999. School-based curriculum development: The Hong Kong experience. The Curriculum Journal 10, no. 3: 419-42.
32. May, P. 2003. Policy design and implementation. In Handbook of public administration, ed. B. Peters and J. Pierre, 223-33. London: Sage.
33. McClelland, J.A.G. 1991. Curriculum development in Hong Kong. In Curriculum development in East Asia, ed. C. Marsh and P. Morris, 106-28. London: The Falmer Press.
34. McDonnell, L.M., and R.F. Elmore. 1987. Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9: 133-52.
35. McLaughlin, M. 1976. Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record 77, no. 3: 339-51.
36. McLaughlin, M. 1990. The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher 19, no. 9: 11-6.
37. Morris, P. 2002. Promoting curriculum reforms in the context of a political transition: An analysis of Hong Kong's experience. Journal of Education Policy 17, no. 1: 13-28.
38. Morris, P., and K.K. Chan. 1998. Cross-curricular themes and curriculum reform in Hong Kong: Policy as discourse. In Curriculum and assessment for Hong Kong, ed. P. Stimpson, and P. Morris, 245-62. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press.
39. Morris, P., and I. Scott. 2003. Educational reform and policy implementation in Hong Kong. Journal of Education Policy 18, no. 1: 71-84.
40. Murray, A. 2002. European economic reform: Tackling the delivery deficit. London: Centre for European Reform. http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/p36x_economic_reform.pdf.
41. Policy 21. 2004. Review of the capacity enhancement grant (Final Report). Education Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_691/p0401e.pdf.
42. Rogan, J.M., and D.J. Grayson. 2003. Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education 25, no. 10: 1171-204.
43. Sabatier, P.A. 1986. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy 6, no. 1: 21-48.
44. Spillane, J., B. Reiser, and L. Gomez. 2006. Policy implementation and cognition - the role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In New directions in education policy implementation - confronting complexity, ed. M. Honig, 47-64. Albany, NY: State University Press of New York.
45. Torenvlied, R., and A. Akkerman. 2004. Theory of 'soft' policy implementation in multilevel systems with an application to social partnership in the Netherlands. Acta Politica 39, no. 1: 31-58.
46. Winter, S. 2003. Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration. In Handbook of public administration, ed. B. Peters and J. Pierre, 213-22. London: Sage.
47. Yanow, D. 1995. Practices of policy interpretation. Policy Sciences 28: 111-2.