Location of the study

This critique of the exercise of power in the development and implementation of the NQF is located within the discipline of Philosophy of Education. As explained above, the work of Michel Foucault is used as theoretical framework to guide the research process and also to provide the necessary and appropriate research tools.

The location of the study is not limited to post-modern or post-structural theory, although aspects of both are evident. As is the case with the work of Foucault, a more impartial and straddling

approach is assumed – an approach that is at the same time limited to the work of Foucault and also not limited to a particular school of thought. The decision for this approach originates primarily from the very nature of the object of this study, namely the NQF as social construct. According to Isaacs (2001:124) a social construct of this nature requires social actors in society to not only

theorise, construct and implement the NQF, but also to ‘enable, actively change or work against [the NQF]’. Isaacs continues by asking the question:

Is the NQF modernist, constructivist or postmodernist in nature, and therefore subject to the criticisms and advantages of the specific label? (Ibid.)

The response to this question broadly summarises the reason for placing this study outside a particular school of thought:

The evolving NQF will tend toward particular theoretical directions as a consequence of intellectual scrutiny, rather than being determined in advance by tight definition (Isaacs, 2001:125).

It is argued in this study that the choice of a Foucauldian theoretical framework accommodates the evolving, and therefore also current nature of the NQF, providing a common frame of reference for the research. As was mentioned earlier, the choice of placing the study within a Foucauldian framework was not made without intense deliberation. Although this choice is debated in much more detail later in this, and in subsequent chapters, it is useful to note, even at this introductory stage, the main reasons for making this choice:

• Empirical evidence can be included in the Foucauldian framework

• Power can be analysed in the Foucauldian framework

• Research methods for the analysis of power are available in the Foucauldian framework

• The analysis of power moves beyond the institutional level in the Foucauldian framework.

These reasons are briefly discussed below.

1.1.3.1 Empirical evidence can be included in the Foucauldian framework

Foucault’s approach to analysing power includes an emphasis on empirical evidence. The author’s involvement in a longitudinal comparative investigation into the impact of the NQF on the South African education and training system, the NQF Impact Study (SAQA, 2004 and 2005b) and various other NQF-related research projects has facilitated access to a wealth of empirical data that could not have been gathered by a single researcher in a formal study as this. It must also be noted that only data that were accessible to the public were used (see SAQA, 2004c-g, 2005c-g).

At no stage is raw, unreleased empirical data accessed, as this would compromise the author’s integrity and violate the right to anonymity of the research subjects.

In summary, one of the factors that influenced the choice to use Foucauldian theory was the acceptance of empirical research, and more importantly, the value that a more empirical approach adds to the analysis of power relations in the NQF discourse as noted by Foucault:

I would like to suggest another way to go further towards a new economy of power relations, a way which is much more empirical, more directly related to our present situation, and which implies more relations between theory and practice (in Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983:210, emphasis added).

1.1.3.2 Power can be analysed in the Foucauldian framework

The second reason for selecting the Foucauldian framework is probably the most obvious, as Foucault is best known for his work on power. He is most definitely not the only person who has been preoccupied with an analysis of power, but together with the research methods that he develops in the course of his work, the Foucauldian framework is most suitable to a critique of power in the NQF discourse.

This reason also highlights an important self-imposed limitation on this study: power is interpreted in the Foucauldian sense and other interpretations such as those of Adler (1994), Hobbes (see Lloyd, 1992 and Giroux, 1997), are pushed outside the limits of this study. The work of Freire (see Darder, 1991 and Freire, 1985) is a notable exception, as it will be shown that Freireanism has not only had an important influence on NQF development in South Africa, but also that there are similarities between Freire and Foucault’s interpretations of power.

The Foucauldian framework, including the Foucauldian research methods, are employed to make sense of the data collected and create a vantage point from which the problem of the detrimental effect of power in the NQF discourse can be critiqued. The following statement by Foucault illustrates his emphasis on the analysis of power:

Who exercises power? How? On whom? …Who makes decisions for me? Who is preventing me from doing this and telling me to do that? Who is programming my movements and activities? (in Anderson, 1995:41)

Importantly, Foucault himself was adamant that his work was concerned with far more than power alone. This point is taken up again at a later stage, as it has important implications for this study - if Foucault argues that he was not primarily concerned with an analysis of power, then it is important to investigate what he was concerned with, as such insight contributes to an improved

understanding of how to analyse power, possibly in a much more indirect and even antagonistic manner.

1.1.3.3 Research methods for the analysis of power are available in the Foucauldian framework

The third reason for selecting Foucauldian theory has to some extent already been discussed:

contained within Foucault’s work is a range of methods or tools that can be used to “break up systems of power”:

“[all] my books…are, if you like, little tool boxes. If people want to open them, use them, use a particular sentence, idea or analysis like a screwdriver or wrench in order to short-circuit, disqualify or break up systems of power, including eventually the ones from which my books are issued…well all the better!” (Foucault, 1975 in Milchman and Rosenberg, 2003:12).

An important, and not as welcoming characteristic of Foucault’s work becomes evident in the quotation above. The complex and even sometimes incoherent nature of his writings, as well as his own attempts to break up the systems of power from which even his own books are issued,

complicates the task of understanding and applying his methods. In his writings, his methods are continually evolving, replaced by subsequent improved methods and criticised for their inability to analyse power. For this reason a significant part of this thesis is dedicated to the initial

development of two Foucauldian research methods in the context of this study of power in the NQF discourse. It is argued that the fluid nature of these methods requires such a developmental

approach, rather than a more conventional overt description and application. It is further argued that the Foucauldian qualitative methods employed in this study, although familiar and common in name to other applications of Foucauldian theory, are unique, and have been developed in the particular context of this study and will therefore have limited general applicability in other studies, however similar in nature.

1.1.3.4 The analysis of power moves beyond the institutional level in the Foucauldian framework

The fourth and final reason for placing this study in a Foucauldian theoretical framework is also the most significant. Foucault (1983, in Popkewitz and Brennan, 1998:234) argues that the

fundamental point of power relationships ‘is to be found outside the institution’. The limitations that would have been posed on this study on power in the NQF discourse if the critique had remained

at the superficial level of the interaction between NQF stakeholders, such as the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), the Department of Education (DoE) and the Department of Labour (DoL), higher education institutions, private education and training providers, and even large corporates, would have diminished the value of the study. As will be seen throughout this thesis, the institutions associated with NQF development and implementation are not disregarded – in fact, the identification of power relations between such NQF stakeholders forms an important part of the initial stage of the description of power in the NQF discourse - what is more important however, is that the analysis of power in the NQF discourse moves beyond the point of power relations between institutions in an attempt to identify the very starting points that are linked to the noticeable way in which power appears at the point of its direct relationship with the NQF.