TITLE: WPR: thinking critically about reform options

In a recent Research Hub entry (26 Feb 2026), I mention the work of Rönnblom and Edwards (2025) on uses of WPR. I identify three interrelated topics under consideration in their work: (1) positions on “values”; (2) positions on political reform strategies; (3) positions on the place of intentionality in political analysis. In that entry I discussed the first of these topics, reflecting on the relationship between WPR and normativity. Today I take up the second topic and ask specifically: if WPR refuses to endorse specific reform proposals, is it of any use to those who have a reform agenda? 

To begin, I feel the need to provide a review of the point and purpose of a WPR analysis. The hope is that such a review proves useful both to those engaging with the approach for the first time and to those who have worked in the field previously. 

Just what is WPR intended to do? 

What kind of analysis is WPR intended to undertake? From 2009 (Bacchi 2009) I have described WPR as a critical approach to governing practices, writ large. That is, the approach asks how governing takes place and whether we ought to have any concerns about how governing takes place. 

I think of this as a two-stage project. First, it is important to recognise that, for WPR, governing extends beyond conventional political institutions. So, we are not talking about “government” in the usual sense of legislators and policies. Rather, the interest in governing includes a broad sweep of the many influences shaping our lives. Consider, for example, the impact of professional disciplines such as psychology and economics, the impact of schools and universities, the impact of corporate institutions and advertising practices, etc., etc. This is all “governing” (see “governmentality” in Bacchi 2026, Chapter 7) and is open to WPR scrutiny.

Stage 2 involves broadening our conception of “influence”. WPR is not solely concerned with top-down interventions such as university enrolment practices or psychological guidelines (DSM-5). Rather, it considers how the full range of “influences” represent the “problems” they purport to address. We start asking about how “issues” are problematised due to the conviction that problematisations play a significant role in how we are governed. The focus here becomes “problem representations” and how they influence lives and worlds. Consider this position as embracing a more subtle and simultaneously more comprehensive understanding of governing processes. 

So, you can see that the terrain opened up by WPR is vast – we look at the wide range of influences shaping lives and worlds, including how governing practices impose meanings on those lives and worlds. 

The starting point in WPR thinking, therefore, is that we need to think critically about this vast terrain of governing practices. Its goal is to help us consider at some depth aspects of governing practices that may need rethinking (re-problematisation, reconceptualization, re-development). The goal therefore is reform. But importantly, the task is not to develop specific reforms but to raise critical questions about directions in reform. WPR helps us to think critically about reform options. 

Critics of WPR

It is here that critics express qualms about the WPR approach. These qualms take several forms.

At one level the reaction to a WPR approach reflects disagreements about the nature of critique. There are wide-ranging disputes about how change occurs. Specifically, an argument has developed that contrasts what are called “affirmative” approaches to reform to “negative” approaches (with WPR clustered within the second of these). 

In a well-known article, Bruno Latour (2004) targets for criticism a particular style of critique, which he describes as a purely deconstructive and hence “negative” form of criticism. In his view, rather than (simply) deconstructing or “debunking”, researchers need to be involved in assembling – i.e., in bringing together collective “concerns” in a “Parliament of Things” (Latour 1993, pp. 144–145):

“The critic is not the one who debunks, but the one who assembles. The critic is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naïve believers, but the one who offers the participants arenas in which to gather. (Latour 2004, p. 246)”. 

This typecasting of styles of critique took hold such that critique came to be discussed through an inflexible duality – “assembling” versus “debunking”, “affirming” versus “negating”, “crafting commonality or enacting disparity” (Munk & Abrahamsson 2012, p. 54; see also Lorenzini & Tazzioli 2020). In Bacchi 2026 I spend some time (Chapter 13) considering the nature of this disagreement and providing a response (see next section)

Qualms about WPR’s reform possibilities often reflect contrasting theoretical commitments. Those with an interpretive focus on policy actors and the “coalface” of policy-making find poststructural approaches limiting. They wish instead to stress the important place of “solution construction”. For example, according to Savage et al. (2021, p. 308) “scholarship that draws on poststructuralist philosophy and theory” often foregrounds “the benefits of critique and forms of problematisation but in lieu of articulating explicit solutions or visions for change”. These scholars tend to be concerned with the danger of what is called “endless regress” (see previous entry 26 Feb 2026). They stress that “at the end of the day all policy makers must do something” (Savage 2018, p. 317; see Research Hub entries 30 Dec 2021, 30 Jan 2022, 30 March 2022).

These arguments need to be taken seriously. Why should policymakers be interested in WPR, if it doesn’t provide specific directives for policy change? 

Reply to critics

Put simply, there is a need to challenge the dichotomous characterisation of reform approaches (i.e. “affirmative” versus “negative”). WPR targets the spaces betweenthese two positions. It may not provide specific directives, but it does assist in encouraging creative thinking around reform options. 

The hesitancy to endorse specific reforms stems from the concern that those reforms may inadvertently buy into established ways of thinking that need questioning. That is, there is a concern that researchers are necessarily implicated in widely accepted and unexamined ways of thinking – that they may well accept premises that ought to be questioned (Bacchi and Goodwin 2025, p. 22). As Teghtsoonian (2016, p. 341) describes, the reluctance to advance “solutions” is tied to the poststructural stance that “‘liberatory’ or ‘emancipatory’ impulses” may well be “implicated in the constitution of governing practices”. 

This argument underpins the need for “self”-problematisation (see Process 7 in Table, Bacchi 2026 p. 22) in which researchers apply the WPR questions to their own proposals or “proposed solutions”. Bringing attention to governmental problematisations, which I see as the task of a WPR analysis, can assist policy workers and researchers to question the parameters within which their work is cast. I consider this encouragement to policy workers and researchers to engage critically with the problematizations in policies and in their own proposals as a positive research contribution. Applying the WPR questions in these ways, I suggest, makes it easier to recognize the full range of issues that need to be included in any “reform” design. They also alert researchers and policy workers to facets of the issues that may well have escaped their/our attention. 

While poststructuralist analysis, therefore, does not put forward a blueprint for political change, which people are directed to adopt, it opens a space to think differently and creatively about the relations and rules through which governing takes place. I provide a few examples to illustrate the benefits of this new way of thinking. 

Reform options: examples

In my 1999 book I include a chapter that examines contrasting proposals aimed at achieving pay equity for women (Bacchi 1999, Chapter 4). I distinguish among several ways of “framing” the “problem” of pay inequity: equal pay for equal work, equal pay for work of equal value (otherwise known as “comparable worth”) and wage solidarity. In “equal pay for equal work” the target of critique is employer discrimination. In comparable worth approaches, the “problem” is represented to be the wage gap between women’s and men’s wages due to women’s location in specific undervalued jobs (e.g., the “caring” professions). In wage solidarity, the proposal to raise women’s wages by raising wages across the board creates the “problem” as worker exploitation.

The chapter on pay equity does not end up recommending one of these options in all cases. That is, if a policy worker were looking for endorsement of a singular policy framework, they would not find it in Women, Policy and Politics. Rather, I show how creative reworking can assist in responding to particular situations or contexts. Using Burton et al.’s (1987, pp. 90-94) pay equity intervention, I show how they reframed the “problem” to problematise job hierarchy. As they describe, “working through and down the hierarchy” tends to be valued over working “laterally and up”. Thinking in terms of problematisations serves, therefore, to broaden the parameters of what ought to be considered relevant to a specific area of reform (“pay equity”). 

In a different space, Razack calls for some creative re-thinking of the Canadian immigration and refugee guidelines on gender-related persecution. She is concerned about some of the effects that flow from the way in which the “problem” tends to be represented. She notes (1995, pp. 46, 49), for example, that refugee hearings are always “profoundly racialized” events in which the “outwardly compassionate process of granting asylum” creates “First World countries as benefactors”, while the people of the Third World are created as “supplicants asking to be relieved of the disorder of their world and to be admitted to the rational calm of ours”. This representation of the “problem” ignores and belies the role of the First World in creating, through economic exploitation, the circumstances of the distress suffered by refugees.

Now, importantly, Razack does not argue that feminist reformers ought to stop using “gender persecution” to advance the cause of women refugees. But she does want feminist reformers to “explore ways in which we might talk about women and the violence they experience” that acknowledge the operation of power relations between First and Third Worlds. She suggests that a way forward here is to produce gender persecution legislation “as one element of a multi-pronged strategy in which the goal would be to change social structures that propel men to be violent and condone their excesses” (Razack 1995, p. 71). Razack’s proposition does not constitute a prescribed reform program, but it highlights central aspects of the reform program that need rethinking and modification. WPR, I suggest, provides assistance in thinking through precisely what this task entails. 

I find many suggestions similar to Razack’s in recent WPR applications (see Select Reference List on  Welcome to the WPR Network! | Karlstad University (kau.se). Researchers in the main are keenly aware that their analysis leads to the possibility of creative interventions that can help reshape problem representations that are found to have deleterious effects – subjectification, objectification, discursive and lived (Question 5, Bacchi 2026, p. 24). 

For example, Nieminen et al. (2026) adopt Poststructural Interview Analysis (PIA), a “sister strategy” to WPR (Bacchi and Bonham 2025, Chapter 8), to reflect on the subjectification effects of teacher placements in Australia. Their task, as they describe it, is to “help unpack why disabilities remain marginalised in teacher education”. They emphasise the complex identity work that the students take part in. In placements, they argue, “students become known as future professionals in relation to particular ‘able’ ideals of teachers as someone spatially fit and rational”. 

Importantly, Nieminen et al. (2026) state upfront that their research is concerned with a pressing question: 

“How to make placements more inclusive, then? This is the question future research must address, and we hope the stories we have reported could inspire such work”. (p. 21). They offer specific insights into possible ways forward: 

“Locating teacher identity formation and potential mechanisms of ableism within the practices of teacher education allows for alternative interventions to occur. If placements organise the subject formation of students, then the question is, how to reassemble the practices of placements in ways that enable other ways of being, knowing and doing?” 

That is, by acknowledging the important role of subject formation, it becomes possible to consider innovative interventions. The deconstructive theory and analysis prepare the ground for “affirmative” modes of “becoming”.

In an article on the topical issue of how University policies regulate generative AI, Driessens and Pischetola (2024) apply WPR to current policies in Denmark. They show the potential for Question 4 on silencing practices (Bacchi 2026, p. 22) to alert policymakers to aspects of AI practices that ought to be included in any policy reform. Specifically, they raise questions about the impact of generative AI in terms of labour and energy use, topics that are currently under-analysed. The authors argue that 

“Universities should integrate these considerations into both their decision-making on (not) using certain technologies and their policies and guidelines for research and teaching, just as sustainability is already a criterion in their travel or investment policies today.” (Abstract) 

Again, an analysis of problematisations produces useful and provocative insights into reform options.

On a closely related topic, Luo (2024) analysed the GenAI policies of 20 world-leading universities to explore “what are considered problems in this AI-mediated assessment landscape and how these problems are represented in policies” (Abstract). She identifies as the primary problem representation that GenAI undermines the originality of student work. As Luo points out, this problematisation highlights the need to consider what is meant by “originality” “in a time when knowledge production becomes increasingly distributed, collaborative and mediated by technology” (Abstract). To this end she calls for “a more inclusive approach to address the originality of students’ work”: “Moving forward, higher education policies can reframe originality from a collaborative perspective and situate it along a continuous spectrum” (P. 12).

 Luo’s exploration of problematisations in the “problem space” of GenAI leads to suggestions for changes in thinking and practice:

“Understanding the problem representation in university GenAI policies is crucial to underpin further moves at a practical level. This study evokes critical reflection on what makes a student’s work original in the presence of AI, prompting higher education policymakers and practitioners to review, rethink and revise current policy discourses around GenAI use and work originality. One recommended approach is to organize consultation meetings, seminars and debates to further challenge and deepen the concept of originality rather than seeing it as enshrined in the policies. Partnering with students in these consultations to understand how they approach GenAI and understand work originality will be desirable.” (p. 12)

We return now to our guiding question for this entry: can WPR assist in policy design? The examples I offer (Bacchi, Razack, Nieminen et al., Driessens and Pischetola, Luo)  – and there are many other examples in the Select Reference List ( Welcome to the WPR Network! | Karlstad University (kau.se)  – illustrate how WPR serves to broaden the parameters of what ought to be considered relevant to a specific area of reform. It highlights the need to examine how “problems” are conceptualised, including interrogation of our own premises. It sharpens an awareness of the effects of the frameworks we adopt and encourages us to find proposals that “diminish effects we want to discourage” (Bacchi 1999, p. 90). Importantly, the question of what ought to be discouraged remains an open question – one that needs to be on the table – not one that is assumed beforehand. Such critical reflections “sow the seeds of judgement” (Osborne 1998 in Rose 2000, p. 59), helping to make judgement possible. 

CONCLUSION

It is disturbing to see the forms of analysis offered by WPR and other poststructural projects misrepresented. For example, according to Hoppe (2025, emphasis added), “the critical perspective” in WPR leads to the conclusion that “any governmental-oriented effort at reform should be rejected as a rhetorical performance of government and as part of government and political reason”. 

I hope this Research Hub entry clarifies that WPR is not about acceptance or rejection of efforts at reform. Rather, it provides a tool to ensure that such efforts do not inadvertently reinforce marginalisation and exploitation. The concern is not with rhetoric (as per Hoppe’s characterisation). Rather, the analysis probes the deep-seated epistemological and ontological presuppositions in policy proposals. Hoppe’s reference to “political reason” should be understood as “political rationalities”, which invite analysis of specific political rationales to identify lacunae and political implications (Bacchi and Goodwin 2025, pp. 48-50).  

The underlying goal in a WPR analysis is to encourage a questioning attitude and a “self”-questioning attitude. Such an approach makes it possible to promote positive interventions that reshape problem representations found to be limited and at times harmful. It is an essential component of any reform toolkit. 

References

Bacchi, C.1999. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage.

Bacchi, C. 2009. Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.

Bacchi, C. 2026. What’s the Problem Represented to be? A new thinking paradigm. NY: Routledge.

Bacchi, C. and Goodwin, S. 2025. Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. Second edition. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Burton, C., with Hag, R. and Thompson, G. 1987. Women’s Worth: Pay Equity and Job Evaluation in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. 

Driessens, O. and Pischetola, M. 2024. Danish university policies on generative AI:Problems, assumptions and sustainability blind spots. MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research.  Vol 40, no. 76. 

Hoppe, R. 2025. Problems and Problematization in Public Policy. In Encyclopedia of Public Policy, DOI. 10.1007/978-3-030-90434-0_106-1

Latour, B 1993, We have never been modern, trans. C Porter, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Latour, B 2004, ‘Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern’, Critical Inquiry, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 225–248.

Lorenzini, D & Tazzioli, M 2020, ‘Critique without ontology: genealogy, collective subjects and the deadlocks of evidence’, Radical Philosophy, no. 2.07, pp. 27–39.

Luo, J 2024, “A critical review of GenAI policies in higher education assessment: a call to reconsider the ‘originality of students’ work “, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2024.2309963 

Munk, AK & Abrahamsson, S 2012, ‘Empiricist interventions: strategy and tactics on the ontopolitical battlefield’, Science & Technology Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 52–70, DOI:10.23987/sts.55281.

Nieminen, J. H., Dollinger, M. and Finneran, R. 2026. Becoming a disabled teacher: teacher placements as sites for identify formation. The Australian Educational Researcher, 53:22, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-025-00949-8

Osborne, T. 1998. Aspects of Enlightenment: Social Theory and the Ethics of Truth. London: UCL Press. 

Razack, S. 1995. Domestic Violence as Gender Persecution: Policing the Borders of Nation, Race and Gender. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 8: 45-88.

Rose, N. 2000. Powers of Freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Rönnblom, M. & Edwards, R. (04 Sep 2025): A critical explanation of uses of Carol Bacchi’s WPR approach, Critical Policy Studies, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2025.2555388 

Savage, G. C. 2018. Policy assemblages and human devices: a reflection on “Assembling Policy”. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(2): 309-321.

Savage, G. C., Gerrard, J., Gale, T. and Molla, T.  2021. The evolving state of policy sociology: mobilities, moorings and elite networks. Critical Studies in Education, 62(3): 306-321. 

Teghtsoonian, K. 2016. Methods, discourse, activism: comparing institutional ethnography and governmentality. Critical Policy Studies, 10:3, 330-347, DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2015.1050426