Post‐Fordism and the Theorisation of Educational Change: what's in a name?

Post‐Fordist approaches offer a stimulating account of recent educational restructuring. There is, however, a problem with the term itself and the way it has framed and defined the debate. Mot only does it combine a number of diverse frameworks, applications and conclusions, but it also composites different levels of definitional coherence. In this way post‐Fordist education tries to operate as a generalised metaphor whilst also incorporating more tightly‐defined conceptual narratives. The result is that these different meanings become collapsed and the term itself swamped by overuse. A consequence is that the model is less able to offer an incisive or distinctive perspective on educational change. When specific post‐Fordist narratives are used to interrogate educational restructuring it is clear that they are unable to capture the range of levels in which change is both generated and manifest. This raises a broader issue for educational theorisation—identifying the structures that mediate and link the economic and educational realms (and in particular, the role of politics and ideology). A further conclusion is that grand theoretical designs need to be chaperoned by a policy analysis approach or at least a more detailed account of the policy sector to be explained.