Public Policy and Higher Education: Strategies for Framing a Research Agenda : ASHE Higher Education Report, Volume 41, Number 2 [1 ed.] 9781119067702, 9781119067818

Citation preview

VOLUME 41 Number

2

Public Policy and Higher Education: Strategies for Framing a Research Agenda Nicholas W. Hillman, David A. Tandberg, Brian A. Sponsler

ASHE Higher Education Report A v a i l a b l e o n l i n e a t w i l e y o n l i n e l i b r a r y. c o m

ASHE Higher Education Report: Volume 41, Number 2 Kelly Ward, Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel, Series Editors

Public Policy and Higher Education: Strategies for Framing a Research Agenda Nicholas W. Hillman, David A. Tandberg, Brain A. Sponsler

Public Policy and Higher Education: Strategies for Framing a Research Agenda Nicholas W. Hillman, David A. Tandberg, Brain A. Sponsler ASHE Higher Education Report: Volume 41, Number 2 Kelly Ward, Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel, Series Editors Copyright C⃝ 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work beyond that permitted by Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; (201) 748-8789, fax (201) 748-6326, www.wiley.com/go/permissions. Cover image by

C⃝

ISSN 1551-6970

iStock.com/retrorocket electronic ISSN 1554-6306

ISBN 978-1-119-06781-8

The ASHE Higher Education Report is part of the Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published six times a year by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, California 94104-4594. Individual subscription rate (in USD): $174 per year US/Can/Mex, $210 rest of world; institutional subscription rate: $352 US, $412 Can/Mex, $463 rest of world. Single copy rate: $29. Electronic only–all regions: $174 individual, $352 institutional; Print & Electronic–US: $192 individual, $423 institutional; Print & Electronic–Canada/Mexico: $192 individual, $483 institutional; Print & Electronic–Rest of World: $228 individual, $534 institutional. CALL FOR PROPOSALS: Prospective authors are strongly encouraged to contact Kelly Ward ([email protected]) or Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel ([email protected]). Visit the Jossey-Bass Web site at www.josseybass.com. Printed in the United States of America on acid-free recycled paper. The ASHE Higher Education Report is indexed in CIJE: Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC), Education Index/Abstracts (H.W. Wilson), ERIC Database (Education Resources Information Center), Higher Education Abstracts (Claremont Graduate University), IBR & IBZ: International Bibliographies of Periodical Literature (K.G. Saur), and Resources in Education (ERIC).

Advisory Board The ASHE Higher Education Report Series is sponsored by the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), which provides an editorial advisory board of ASHE members. Amy Bergerson University of Utah Bryan Brayboy Arizona State University Ryan Gildersleeve University of Denver Michael Harris Southern Methodist University Elizabeth Jones Holy Family University Adrianna Kezar University of Southern California Kevin Kinser SUNY – Albany Peter Magolda Miami University of Ohio

Public Policy and Higher Education

Dina C. Maramba SUNY – Binghamton Susan Marine Merrimack College Christopher Morphew University of Iowa Robert Palmer SUNY – Binghamton Michael Paulsen University of Iowa Todd Ream Taylor University Barbara Tobolowsky University of Texas at Arlington Carolyn Thompson University of Missouri, Kansas City Diane Wright Florida Atlantic University

iii

Contents Executive Summary

vi

Foreword

ix

Introduction Goals of This Monograph What Is Public Policy? Theories of the Policymaking Process Traditional Views of Policy-Relevant Research Toward an Expanded View of Policy-Relevant Research Summary

1 5 6 9 16 18 20

Sources of Higher Education Policy State Policy Actors in the Postsecondary Context Federal Policy Actors in the Postsecondary Policy Context Summary

21 22 33 42

Supplying Policy-Relevant Research Problem Identification Research Design Policy Implications Dissemination of Results Utilization of Results Summary

44 48 49 52 54 56 60

iv

Bearing More Fruit? The Prospects of Conducting Policy-Relevant Research The Limitations of “Using” Academic Research in Policymaking Does the Use of Research Lead to Better Policymaking? Narrowing the Gap: Framing Studies in Their Appropriate Policy Context Summary

63 64 66 67 73

Summary and Reflections Trends in Policy Scholarship in Higher Education Can Higher Education Research Be More Policy Relevant? Final Reflections

75 76 79 81

Notes

83

References

84

Name Index

92

Subject Index

95

About the Authors

97

v

Executive Summary As a research community, higher education scholars have many opportunities to engage our work with public policymaking. In fact, our field’s top journals and professional associations urge us to conduct research that is policy relevant. But what does it mean to be “policy relevant”? And how would one go about conducting a policy-relevant study? These questions have no easy or “right” answers, but this monograph offers guidance to researchers interested in spanning academic and policy communities. The ability to connect research with public policymaking is one of the greatest challenges facing social science research, and the march for evidence-based policymaking is sure to press on in the years to come. But the ability to connect policy with scholarship is crucial if we are to test and build new theories, employ new analytical techniques, and come to new understandings of how our work is useful beyond the ivory tower. This monograph wrestles with these challenges and stems from ongoing conversations we have had regarding the state of affairs in higher education scholarship. We were struck by the amount of criticism leveled against our field, which we later learned is common across the social sciences (and not just unique to higher education). Some of these criticisms are warranted, but they are often made without advice for building our field’s capacity to engage with public policy scholarship. We wrote this monograph because we are unsatisfied with critiques that are unaccompanied by advice—it is unproductive to offer critiques without also offering solutions. This monograph tries to outline some solutions. We acknowledge many graduate programs are already training students in these techniques and scholars are already employing them, vi

so our goal is not to start a conversation about policy-relevant research (this discussion began decades ago). Instead, we set out to make policy relevance more pervasive across the field and to offer strategies for framing our collective work in more policy-relevant ways.

Can Research Be Useful in Public Policymaking? The divide between academic research and public policymaking (whether perceived or real) is a timeless issue for social scientists. The appropriate distance between academics and policymaking is left for the reader to decide. Similarly, the assumption that a narrower gap between academic research and policymakers will yield “better” policies is up for debate. We acknowledge these tensions, which is why we include differing perspectives on the role of research in policymaking. We include skeptics who argue academic researchers should not study whatever is the hot policy issue of the day; after all, policies are fleeting and what is relevant today may be irrelevant tomorrow. We also include perspectives that argue for more proactive scholarship, where academics must get ahead of policy issues and answer questions long before they are asked. There is a wide range between these two perspectives, and the merits of either approach will change depending on the policy context. Nevertheless, we wrote this from the perspective that researchers could be more proactive and that public policymaking is generally enhanced when the gap between research and policymaking is narrowed. That said, we are not blind to the politics, and the monograph wrestles with the idiosyncrasies of the policymaking process. For example, the timing and timeliness of a policy will determine whether a study is relevant. Policy relevance is also determined according to whatever research is available for a policymaker at a given time, which means academic research competes with other information (i.e., advocacy research, anecdotes, political ideology, etc.) for a policymaker’s attention. Also, relevance follows different rhythms (and with different reward structures) in research and policymaking, making the gap between research and policy dependent upon the policy context. These are important factors researchers should anticipate when asking research questions, framing their study, and interpreting their results. Public Policy and Higher Education

vii

How Can Research Be More Policy Relevant? While there are certainly no guarantees, we identify several “traditional” and “expanded” perspectives that, when addressed, should improve the chances a policymaker will take interest in a research study. Traditional perspectives encourage researchers to identify a problem, focus on a strong research design, discuss policy implications, and then disseminate the results so policymakers can use them in ongoing debates. The expanded view complicates this by discussing how politics, power dynamics, certain methods, and timing all play roles in shaping whether (or if at all) the scholarship we supply will be in demand by state or federal policymakers. In addition to these strategies, we offer examples of “who” are the policymakers, “what” policies dominate their attention, and “how” research is used (or misused) in policymaking. We present strategies for framing research around important policy contexts (e.g., source of policy, level of governance, instrument types, policy goals, etc.), and we discuss theories and research designs that hold promise for policy scholarship (e.g., multiple streams, policy diffusion, quasi-experimental design, comparative case studies, etc.). Higher education is facing significant problems related to access, quality, and affordability, while policymakers are calling on colleges to be more accountable for their performance. States and the federal government invest billions of dollars each year in higher education, so it is no surprise that policymakers at each level of government are concerned about the future of higher education. If we are not more strategic and intentional about “how” our scholarship interacts with public policy, then we can expect to continue hearing critiques about how our field is a literature without an audience or one that bears no fruit. To the extent that our scholarly community can connect its research with emerging policy debates, we can increase the likelihood that future policy solutions will be evidence based and informed by the most recent and rigorous research in our field.

viii

Foreword A perennial issue related to higher education research is making it relevant to inform policy and practice. There are workshops, conferences, and webinars dedicated to making research practical, relevant, and useful to different publics. Of course, this makes sense. Higher education as a field of study is in place to help inform practice and to improve different aspects and outcomes related to higher education. The problem seems to be clearly identified: Higher education research needs to be more relevant. The solution, however, is not as clear. What does it mean to be relevant? For whom is research to be relevant? Who are the audiences who need higher education research (college presidents? student affairs practitioners? lobbyists? public policy makers? students?)? What’s the key to making research relevant? These and other questions are often the subject of discussion to address problems of irrelevance for higher education researchers. The focus of this monograph, Public Policy and Higher Education: Strategies for Framing a Research Agenda, is on making research relevant for public policy. As authors, Nicholas W. Hillman, David A. Tandberg, and Brian A. Sponsler do a masterful job of moving from identifying the problem to providing ideas on how to make research important and useful to public policy makers. Although their focus is on public policy, many of the ideas they put forth are helpful to anyone wanting to make their research more pointed and relevant regardless of audiences. The authors move the conversation about relevance from trite to action. Relying on literature related to public policy and higher education, examples from the field, and the research experience of the authors, the monograph Public Policy and Higher Education

ix

helps move the conversation about policy-relevant research forward. The intent of the monograph is not to start or review the problem in detail, but instead to move the conversation forward in ways that provide strategies to pursue research that is applicable. The monograph includes a solid definition of public policy (a topic researchers tend to think they know, but the definitions provide much needed grounding), including sources and types of public policy. The authors also provide a detailed view of all aspects of the research process and how to make problems, research designs, analyses, and dissemination plans policy relevant. The bulk of the monograph is dedicated to guiding readers in the process of making research relevant for different aspects of public policy and at different stages of the research process. The monograph is quite relevant and directive. The authors clearly describe the features of traditional and expanded strategies for conducting policy-relevant research that can help readers navigate all aspects of the research process, from problem identification to utilization of research, in ways that can help guide the research process from one that is stuck in traditional ways of approaching problems that are not always relevant to one where policy environments are recognized as entangled with politics so research needs to be dynamic. The challenge put forth to researchers in the monograph is one of specificity. Too often researchers present the implications for their findings in general terms rendering the findings somewhat useless to particular audiences or, in some instances, any audience. Researchers would do well to follow the advice of Hillman, Tandberg, and Sponsler in their call to identify policy audiences and then to pursue research and findings that meet those particular needs. By outlining theories and policy processes, the authors provide a compendium of information that is sure to be of use to those doing public policy research and to researchers looking to make their research relevant, regardless of audience. The monograph is also sure to be of use to early career researchers and graduate students who are trying to enter research conversations in ways that are pointed toward particular problems and audiences. As higher education researchers, we tend to have good intent to make our research rigorous, applicable, and useful for particular audiences. But, it’s easy to be rendered irrelevant when conversations become insular and focused on x

other researchers. The advice offered in this monograph will help guide higher education researchers in their quest to be relevant in all aspects of the research process. Kelly Ward Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel Series Editors

Public Policy and Higher Education

xi

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) ∙ DOI: 10.1002/aehe.20020

Introduction

O

VER THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES, observers have levied sharp criticisms against the quality and direction of research that occurs within the field of higher education. One of the more visible critiques came from George Keller’s (1985) metaphor that this research field is a “tree without fruit,” barren due to its inability to resonate with public policymakers and educational practitioners. He warns that the field could become a “literature without an audience” (p. 8) if we fail to make our work resonate beyond academic circles and into the realm of public policymaking. Keller is neither the first nor will be the last person to make this critique. For at least three decades since Keller’s remarks, presidents of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) have urged scholars to make deliberate connections between their work and ongoing public policy problems (Ness, 2010a). The disconnect between research and policy is not unique to higher education. Similar divides exist across the social sciences, where anthropologists, sociologists, economists, psychologists, and researchers in other disciplines have struggled to build bridges between research and policy (Furner, 2011). And due to this disconnect, professional organizations—like the National Research Council (NRC), which consists of some of the nation’s most distinguished social scientists who provide policy advice to the federal government—encourage academics to make more intentional connections between their scholarship and ongoing public policy debates. Doing so could result in better public policy by having a more representative democracy that prefers evidence over politics in important policy debates (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010). Public Policy and Higher Education

1

Consider the importance of having elected officials justify why they choose to support one policy proposal over another: there is any number of reasons why one might prefer a certain course of policy action. For example, the policymaker could have a strong personal preference for a particular course of action, or they could have heard a compelling anecdotal story that moved them to act. They could have based their support (or opposition) on assumptions about how the world works, or according to a fundamental political belief. While these could lead to sound policy decisions, there is sure to be a wide range of political disagreement about whether these reasons are sufficient justifications for creating public policy. Politics and public policymaking are difficult (if not impossible) to disentangle from one another. The policymaking process is inherently political, and academic research can play a unique role in the policymaking process by taking a more politically neutral stance that is protected by academic freedom. For the sake of simplicity, we start with the assumption that policymakers could rely on social science expertise and academic research as a way to separate politics from policymaking. From this vantage point, “evidence-based” policymaking is preferred over “politically based” policymaking. This is the perspective Prewitt, Schwandt, and Straf (2012) encourage us to consider, where policy scholarship can be a neutralizing force to political debates: When there is a scientific basis for a proposed policy . . . and the reason given for the policy is the effects it will produce, the use of science provides more dependable as well as more defensible reasons than does unsupported presumption or speculations. (p. 27) Academic research can play an important role at the policy table, but getting one’s research to that table can be challenging. This is because policymaking operates in a contested space where scientific evidence is not the only, or most salient, reason why a policymaker chooses a particular course of action. Think tanks, advocacy groups, lobbyists, and journalists often provide research that policymakers use in the policymaking process. We argue that academic research plays a unique and more objective role among these competing 2

sources because it undergoes rigorous peer review, requires a greater degree of transparency in how the analysis was conducted, and is grounded in theory. In this contested space, it is not sufficient simply to “supply” academic research to policymakers; academic research must also be in “demand” by policy audiences.1 Researchers constantly generate new knowledge and share it through academic journals, research conferences, and media outlets. When this work is framed in policy-relevant ways, it has a greater chance of being picked up by policy audiences. Policy audiences have an appetite for research that is timely, germane to the problem they are trying to solve, and easily accessible. But just because research is produced in policy-relevant ways does not necessarily mean policymakers will use it in current policy debates. Considering how rapidly issues rise and fall on policymakers’ radars, it is difficult to anticipate current and future demand for academic research. This can create a wide gulf between the “two communities” of researchers and policymakers (Ness, 2010a), which we will explore throughout this monograph. Some scholars argue this gap is necessary and desirable (Birnbaum, 2000; Labaree, 2008), while others seek to close it (Henig, 2008; Weimer, 2009). Readers should debate the merits of “doing” policy scholarship, but we assume readers are interested in bridging the two communities and closing the gap between academic research and public policymaking. With this context in mind, how can one go about connecting academic research with the policymaking process? How can researchers situate their work so it is accessible, timely, and of importance to policymakers? In a word, how can academic research be more “policy relevant” in the field of higher education? These questions are at the heart of this monograph, and our goal is to offer guidance to graduate students, junior faculty members, and other researchers who are interested in framing their work in policy-relevant ways. We begin this chapter with a brief overview of our goals and motivation for writing this monograph. Next, the chapter provides a working definition of “public policy” that we use throughout the monograph. Then it highlights some of the more commonly used theories of the policymaking process that we believe can be fruitful for higher education researchers. The chapter concludes by introducing readers to the main ideas presented in this monograph: strategies for conducting policy-relevant research. We discuss the “traditional” Public Policy and Higher Education

3

TABLE 1 Features of Traditional and Expanded Strategies for Conducting Policy-Relevant Research

1. Problem identification

2. Research design

3. Policy implications

4. Dissemination of results

5. Utilization of results

Traditional

Expanded

Policies are designed to solve social problems. Use the “right” policy instrument to achieve the best policy results. Choose the appropriate method and rigorously apply it to the research question: the evidence will then speak for itself. Studies should be explicit about how results are useful in practice, or how they could inform policy change. Researchers must publish their work in outlets beyond academic journals. They should actively engage in translating academic work in broadly accessible ways. Academic research should be prioritized over other sources of information. The supply of research can influence a policymaker’s demand.

Problems are socially constructed and policy solutions are loosely coupled to solving them. Policies alone may not fix deeply rooted social problems. Connect a research method to a “stage” of the policymaking process. Rigor alone is an insufficient strategy for informing policy. Identify “who” a policy change affects, and identify points in the policymaking process where results are most applicable. The rhythms of public policymaking and academic publication operate on very different schedules. Consider how a study, in time, relates to policy debates.

Research exists in a contested policy space, where even the most “policy-relevant” study must compete with political demands and other sources of information.

approach to conducting policy-relevant research, and we offer an “expanded” view that acknowledges some of the challenges associated with producing and consuming policy-relevant academic research. Table 1 presents an overview of these perspectives, which we will introduce in the third chapter and reflect upon in the fourth and fifth chapters. The following chapters build upon this discussion, where the second chapter focuses on the sources of public policy for higher education, while 4

the third chapter focuses on policy audiences’ appetite for academic research. In the fourth chapter, we explore some of the promises and pitfalls associated with conducting policy-relevant higher education research, and the final chapter concludes with a synthesis of the core themes that cut across all chapters and reengages Keller’s (1985) original notion that higher education research is a field that bears no fruit.

Goals of This Monograph The primary goal of this monograph is to provide guidance on “how to” conduct policy-relevant scholarship in higher education. To inform our discussion, we draw from traditional theories of the policymaking process and we illustrate examples of how higher education researchers have applied these theories in their own work. Through our synthesis of this literature, and based on our own experiences interacting with higher education scholars, governmental staff, and policy advocates, readers should be able to develop a firm baseline from which to build their research agenda on a given policy topic. In addition to drawing from this resource base, which we refer to as the “traditional” strategy for conducting policy-relevant research, we propose an “expanded” set of ideas and questions that, when addressed, should help researchers frame their work in more policy-relevant ways. Another goal is to encourage researchers to be more intentional and specific about the policy contexts around their research. For instance, stating the specific policy and explaining which level of government is responsible for this policy are two small ways our research can be framed more clearly around policy contexts. Unfortunately, much of the research in higher education never mentions the term “policy”; and when it does, it is vague (e.g., “ . . . these results are relevant to policymakers” or “ . . . this study has policy implications . . . ”). While scholars will surely frame their research in ways that best align with their research questions, we hope our treatment of this topic provides additional ways researchers can engage and disseminate their work in policy-relevant ways. We acknowledge there are pockets of scholars and specific academic programs offering similar guidance to what is provided in this monograph, and Public Policy and Higher Education

5

there are scholars who bring this experience to the academic field from prior professional experiences. But not all students and early-career scholars have been exposed to the ideas and concepts laid out in this monograph. Accordingly, our goal is not to start a conversation about policy-relevant research (this discussion began decades ago); rather, we set out to make it more pervasive across the field and to offer strategies for framing our collective work in more policy-relevant ways. As much as we aim to promote best practices and advice for other researchers, we also aim to “practice what we preach” in our own line of inquiry. In that sense, we hope readers will not view this as a parochial text; rather, it consists of our reflections and observations as we engage with the policy literature ourselves. It also reflects our attempt to make this literature more widely used as a guidepost for inquiry that may not at first blush have a policyfocused intent or outcome. With this context in mind, the monograph is designed as a supplemental textbook for a graduate-level course in higher education policy. We believe it can also be useful for early-career faculty members who are seeking strategies for framing their research in policy-relevant ways, or for introducing students to some of the challenges and opportunities in this line of research.

What Is Public Policy? A working definition of public policy is a necessary first step in exploring different strategies for making higher education research relevant to ongoing policy debates. Scholars have offered a variety of definitions since the 1950s, but for the purposes of this monograph we follow Anderson’s (2011) general definition where public policy is “ . . . a relatively stable, purposive course of action or inaction followed by government in dealing with some problem or matter of concern” (p. 7). This definition allows us to view public policy as an activity that public officials engage in as a way to resolve social problems. While it is surely an overly simplified depiction of public policymaking, it allows us to highlight four important features of public policy that we will build upon and critique throughout this monograph. 6

First, public policies often have ambiguous or imprecise goals that can present challenges in terms of building support around a certain objective and with regard to measuring achievement toward a stated goal. For example, in response to the problem of unequal access to higher education, the federal government has designed various financial aid policies and programs (e.g., Pell grants and Stafford student loans) to encourage more individuals to invest in higher education. In this case, the federal government’s goal is to expand college access—but how do we know whether and to what extent these policy initiatives have successfully achieved these goals? Might there be other policy goals that these aid programs are trying to achieve? What are some of the unintended consequences of pursuing this policy goal? These questions are central to understanding the underlying goals of a public policy, particularly when they are created in ambiguous or imprecise ways. Second, interest in a public policy issue evolves over the course of time and is a dynamic function of government. Issues evolve over time and policy issues are rarely “solved”; rather, policy solutions come and go over time, while underlying problems often remain. Staying with the federal financial aid example, the initial aid policies were targeted at low-income families and created in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty. But by the mid-1970s, the federal government’s policy goals changed to focus on middle-income families: one of the largest expansions of federal financial aid occurred through the 1978 Middle Income Student Assistance Act (Heller, 2011). The federal government did not expand aid because they had solved the poverty problem; instead, the mood of the day encouraged expansion of aid based on a new set of policy priorities. Here we see that policies change according to the pressing concerns of the day, yet they are relatively stable over time. The 1978 change did not fundamentally change the way aid is delivered; rather, it expanded aid eligibility to include a new set of stakeholders. What were the conditions that changed the policy agenda between 1965 and 1978? Would we have been able to anticipate these changes far before they occurred? How might these changes reflect other societal problems occurring in each era? These questions are often central to understanding the temporal nature of public policymaking and to anticipating the dynamic features of the policymaking process. Public Policy and Higher Education

7

Another temporal dimension of policymaking relates to the timeliness of policy actions. Because we understand policymaking as an evolving process, we expect different stages of the policy process to follow the cadence of different temporal rhythms. We will discuss these different stages later in this chapter, but the demand for academic research should differ according to where it is in the policymaking process. For example, when policymakers are crafting policy agendas, academic research may be needed to advance (or retard) a policy position. Preparing our research in ways that make them timely and readily available for policymakers offers an opportunity to align with a “live” policy debate. The timeliness of a study can play an important role in various parts of the policymaking process but can be difficult to time correctly because policymaking often moves at a different cadence than academic research. Third, policymakers design policies in response to competing demands. Private citizens, corporations, special interest groups and lobbyists, along with other legislators and public officials, advocate for action (or inaction) on a given policy issue. These demands come in a variety of forms that range from the vague to the specific. Similarly, policymakers respond to these demands in a variety of ways, ranging from symbolic action (e.g., making a policy statement) to investing resources into policy solutions (e.g., introducing legislation). The American Council on Education (ACE) serves as an example of a special interest group that lobbies Congress on behalf of higher education. ACE does not make public policy decisions; rather, they present policy ideas and alternatives to policymakers on behalf of their association’s members. In this contested space, policymakers must respond to competing demands that ultimately distribute advantages and disadvantages on various stakeholder groups. Considering these competing demands, one might question what role ACE played in shaping the Middle Income Assistance Act. How do policymakers decide among and negotiate between competing demands? Given what prior scholarship has told us about the interest group dynamics of higher education policy, what alternative policy outcomes are reasonably expected in this case? These questions can help researchers gain a more complete understanding of the stakeholders and interests involved in the policymaking process.

8

Fourth, public policies are codified into law, regulation, rulemaking, or another formal mechanism authorizing the government to implement its policy agenda. Coming back to the federal financial aid example, the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Heller, 2011) was the enabling legislation that first established the federal government’s financial aid policy. Within this act, there are 11 primary policy areas (called “Titles”), and financial aid policy is found under Title IV. The shorthand way of describing federal financial aid programs is by referring to it as “Title IV aid.” When conducting research on any higher education issue, whether it is at the federal, state, or system/institution level, it is important to ask: What is the statutory authority governing this policy issue? What are the specific policy mechanisms being used to implement this effort? And how might the statutory authority change in ways that could affect a specific policy issue? These questions can help higher education researchers explain the policy context with the degree of specification necessary to resonate with policy audiences. Taken together, we conceptualize public policy similar to Anderson’s (2011) definition, highlighting (a) the importance of a policy’s goals and (b) the role timing (and timeliness) plays in setting and shifting a policy agenda. We also conceptualize policy as (c) a formal response to competing demands, where (d) policymakers authorize specific policy interventions that ultimately distribute advantages and disadvantages to various stakeholders. Our goal in this monograph is not to evaluate the merits of a specific policy intervention or how policies influence individual behaviors. Instead, we offer this definition as a starting point to help researchers think carefully about how to integrate policy context into their own research and how to frame a study with these basic concepts in mind. In addition to outlining a working definition of public policy, it is also important higher education researchers are familiar with some of the leading theories of the policymaking process.

Theories of the Policymaking Process As outlined by Sabatier (2007) and Anderson (2011), policymaking can be thought of as a series of interrelated events, including agenda setting,

Public Policy and Higher Education

9

FIGURE 1 Heuristic of the “Stages” of Public Policymaking Agenda Setting

Evaluation

Implementation

Formulation

Adoption

formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation (see Figure 1). This is sometimes referred to as the “textbook approach” to understanding the policymaking process, where each event is thought to have unique attributes that differentiate it from the others (Nakamura, 1987). As we discuss in the fourth chapter, and as Sabatier (2007) rightly notes, the “textbook approach” has its limitations; nevertheless, it offers a constructive starting point to help guide our later discussions. This is not because we think these events occur in a sequence, but because it offers a helpful heuristic to consider how different research strategies might relate to different activities occurring throughout the policymaking process.

Agenda Setting Although it may often appear so, policymaking does not occur in a vacuum. Individual citizens, public and private interest groups, as well as other governmental officials routinely persuade (or attempt to persuade) policymakers to take action on a given issue. Not all of these stakeholders will agree on the importance of a particular issue, and they are likely to perceive the underlying problems differently depending on their philosophical beliefs, cultural norms, or socioeconomic condition (Stone, 2012). If each constituency views the underlying problem differently, then they will likely have differing goals in mind regarding how a policymaker should resolve the problem. Agenda 10

setting often focuses on problem identification, how policymakers prioritize their agenda, and the salience of a given problem. John Kingdon (2010) offers a helpful framework for understanding and explaining how agenda setting occurs. In its simplest form, there are three multiple streams that must converge for a policy to move from the agendasetting phase to adoption: problems stream, politics stream, and policy stream. Identifying a problem is a necessary step in the agenda-setting process, but this alone will not be sufficient for policy action. Rather, this problem must be salient for policy stakeholders, and it must converge with the political climate of a given moment in time. Deborah Stone’s (1989, 2012) work shows how difficult it can be to agree on “problems” and how solutions vary according to the underlying cause (i.e., mechanical, accidental, inadvertent, or intentional). Sometimes a policy agenda is less about problem solving and more about shifting responsibility away from one stakeholder group to another. Agenda setting is a fluid process that is not constrained to an early period of the policymaking process. Policy currents are always moving (sometimes fast and sometime slow), and the end goal may be less related to problem solving than to keeping problems, politics, and policies afloat until the three streams converge. Figure 2 displays this relationship, where constituents and interest groups occupy the “politics stream” space, while an elected official is the policy entrepreneur promoting policy solutions in the “alternatives stream.” The “problems stream” includes any range of topics that policymakers are trying to solve; these are sometimes informed by academic research.

FIGURE 2 Heuristic of the Streams Model of Policy Adoption Politics stream Alternatives stream

Policy entrepreneur

Policy window

Policy adoption

Problems stream Source: Adapted from Kingdon (2010) and Ness (2007).

Public Policy and Higher Education

11

These three streams converge through windows of opportunity, which are opened in idiosyncratic ways including political strategies, strategic use of information, and targeting events that raise a collective consciousness of a particular policy issue (Ness, 2010b). But they do not converge by happenstance; rather, they require “policy entrepreneurs” who invest political capital into moving the policy issue through the window of opportunity (Kingdon, 2010). Ultimately, when the streams converge and a window opens, a policy change (or adoption) occurs.

Formulation Policy formulation is the process where policymakers consider and weigh the merits of alternative policy proposals. As we saw in the previous discussion, policymakers respond to a variety of constituents, each of whom has a proposed solution to the underlying policy problem. How a policymaker decides among these competing views and whether the proposed solution represents the constituents’ demands are two important elements of the formulation process. Sometimes they borrow ideas from other states, a phenomenon called “policy diffusion” (Berry & Berry, 1990, 2007) where ideas spread from state to state (or campus to campus in the case of higher education). Additionally, when a policy is formulated, it is rarely done “from scratch”; rather, formulation often occurs with ongoing problems or with existing policies that may need to be improved or updated according to new contexts. Whether adopting a new policy or changing an existing one, think tanks, trade associations, and research centers provide input regarding how they would like policymakers to formulate a given policy. These can be driven by ideological preferences or by research and evidence, although skeptics like Wilson (1978) argue “ . . . most organizations will not do serious research and experimentation in advance. When they use social science at all, it will be on an ad hoc, improvised, quick and dirty basis” (p. 92). We will explore research utilization later in this monograph, but now it is important for us to consider how the formulation of policy alternatives can easily become contested space. Because of this competition, policymakers may wish to vet a wide array of ideas through public hearings and other forums. Some of these ideas will have been floating in the policy solution stream for several decades, while 12

others may be relatively new. If the currents of a political debate are progressing very rapidly and policymakers do not have sufficient time, they may formulate a policy agenda with the information and resources that are politically convenient in the moment.

Adoption The previous two discussions outline some of the factors shaping how and when policy proposals evolve. Up to this point, we have not discussed how a policy becomes a source of authority or how it is adopted. Importantly, there are several policy proposals floating in the multiple streams of policymaking at any given time, but these are not “policies” per se until they are adopted. How policy alternatives become adopted into law (or other sources of authority) ultimately sets the context for how the policy will be implemented and whether it will be successful. But how do policies get adopted in the first place? In answering this question, we begin to see the limitations of using the “stages” heuristic to explain the policymaking process. Setting an agenda and offering policy alternatives do not result in policy adoption. These are not linear or causal steps; rather, adoption is often an idiosyncratic behavior that does not necessarily evolve from a well-formulated policy agenda and a clear sense of the merits of various policy alternatives. To explore policy adoption, one can draw from the theory of “punctuated equilibrium” that consists of a focusing event (e.g., adoption of a new policy) followed by a new period of stability (Baumgartner & Jones, 2010). Focusing events range from the routine (elections, reauthorizing a piece of legislation, etc.) to the extreme (natural disasters, national emergencies, etc.) and can draw attention to a policy issue. Once attention is on an issue, policy entrepreneurs can mobilize other actors to adopt a new direction for a particular policy. These windows of opportunity can occur at random or they can be opened by a policy entrepreneur; regardless of how they are opened, policy windows are fundamental to understanding how policies are adopted (Kingdon, 2010).

Implementation After a policy has been adopted, it is then necessary to put the ideas into practice via policy implementation. This part of the policymaking process Public Policy and Higher Education

13

focuses on how to carry out the actions called for in the adopted policy, and it is an area ripe for scholarship on “how” policies are translated into action. Ultimately, policymakers are not directly involved in implementing policy decisions; it is the “street level bureaucrat” and other professionals who are responsible for translating policies into practice (Lipsky, 1980). While these professionals work in a variety of roles, they exercise discretion regarding how (and how well) to implement a given policy (Dunn, 2003). Consider the number of individuals responsible for implementing a given policy, and now consider the range of professional norms and values these individuals represent— we can quickly see how policy implementation can differ depending on its context. Policy implementation research often focuses on the techniques governmental bodies use to achieve their policy goals (Howlett, 2005). These techniques are called “policy instruments,” and as the term implies, they are seen as policy tools available for solving a particular policy problem. By this logic, some tools are more appropriate than others, depending on the task at hand. While this is a utilitarian perspective to policy implementation, it offers some compelling direction for researchers interested in understanding whether (and to what extent) various instruments are appropriate for resolving a policy problem. Importantly, implementation research focuses on the role of individuals and organizations in the policymaking process. A policy could be well designed but poorly implemented, resulting in its ultimate failure. Alternatively, a policy could fail if the professionals “on the ground” use their professional discretion to actively not implement the policy, or if they simply do not have the capacity to enact change. There is a long-standing debate about the role of professional responsibility (i.e., discretion) versus compliance with governmental accountability that speaks to the challenges of policy implementation (Jackson, 2009). Table 2 provides some examples of the different categories of instruments used in higher education policymaking.

Evaluation After a policy has been formulated, adopted, and implemented, policymakers often want to know if the policy is “working” or if it has achieved the goals it set out to achieve. This is not the end of the policymaking process; 14

TABLE 2 Examples of Instruments Used in Higher Education Policymaking Category

Instrument

Informational

Declarations State college completion goals Consumer information The White House’s College Scorecard

Financial

Direct subsidies Tax credits Competitive grants User charges

Authoritative

Mandates Approvals Reporting

Capacity building Material investment

Examples in Higher Education

Federal Pell grant and state appropriations American Opportunity Tax Credit Research grants from the National Science Foundation Tuition and fees Accessibility requirements under Americans with Disabilities Act Accreditation for access to federal student aid Clery Act reporting of campus crime Student unit record data systems

Source: Adapted from McDonnell & Elmore (1987), Howlett (2005), and Van Vught (1995).

instead, evaluation is an iterative activity where both formative and summative results can inform future rounds of policy deliberations. Evaluating the effectiveness of policies is of growing importance for federal and state policymakers, but evaluation questions need not be constrained to asking whether a particular policy “works.” Evaluation is also interested in the cost efficiency of a particular policy, where those that are perceived to be too economically or socially costly may face political opposition. Equity issues are also subject to evaluations, where principles of vertical and horizontal equity often apply (DesJardins, 2002). This definition of evaluation is very research oriented and describes “evaluation” as a formal process, often accompanied by technical reports, policy briefs, or even academic publications. However, “evaluation” occurs on a daily basis by the lived experiences of people involved or affected by a particular policy. Public policies are continually being evaluated by the public, the media, elected officials, as well as think tanks. Similarly, individuals who are targeted or affected by a particular policy evaluate how the policy helps (or hinders) Public Policy and Higher Education

15

their own agency and well-being. We focus on a narrower and more formalized conceptualization of “evaluation” for the purposes of this monograph, yet it is important to consider other ways policies are evaluated on a daily basis through these lived experiences. These less formal evaluations occur regardless of whether policymakers or researchers have engaged with a more formal evaluation. When policymakers want to formally evaluate a policy, it often draws on the scientific process and requires a basic understanding of causal inference. Causal inference focuses on the relationship between cause and effect, where policymakers often want to assess whether their policy intervention (the cause) resulted in a particular outcome (the effect). In higher education, and social sciences in general, it is difficult to disentangle cause and effect in clean ways that make it clear the policy intervention (and no other intervening factor) resulted in the policy outcome. Nevertheless, many researchers are curious about the impacts of a particular policy, so academic and nonacademic evaluations can inform this stage of the policymaking process. This brief overview of the policymaking process attempts to paint some broad parameters from which we can frame later discussions.

Traditional Views of Policy-Relevant Research Traditional approaches to policy scholarship track well with the theories of the policymaking process, where there are defining features that differentiate one “stage” from another. But like the policymaking process, we only use these as heuristics to help organize our ideas, noting that the stages of conducting policy-relevant research are recursive and nonlinear. With this in mind, we now shift gears to focus on some of the more standard approaches one might use when embarking on a research project that aims to contribute to public policy debates. The traditional strategies outlined next take a procedural approach to policy scholarship that assumes policymakers are rational actors actively searching for academic research to inform their decisions on any given policy issue. If we assume this is the case, a policymaker would identify a particular policy problem and then, after weighing the evidence and considering the 16

implications, identify an appropriate policy solution. In their pursuit to solve a specific policy problem, policymakers will turn to research in order to make a well-informed decision (Nutley & Webb, 2000; Prewitt et al., 2012). This traditional view suggests research can make its way into policy debates if researchers follow a relatively straightforward calculus (Birnbaum, 2000): Step 1: Identify a policy problem that requires research attention. Step 2: Use a strong research design to ensure the study holds up to critique. Step 3: Specify the policy implications of these results. Step 4: Disseminate results in an accessible and timely manner. Step 5: Observe how policymakers utilize these results. This traditional perspective has become a generally accepted guide for approaching policy-relevant research. It has been extended and applied in various settings; notably, Bardach (2011) outlines a similar calculus in eight (rather than five) steps: define the problem, assemble necessary evidence, introduce policy alternatives, determine how to evaluate outcomes, project those outcomes, weigh the trade-offs, consider how a policymaker might use this information, and finally communicate this information in a clear and compelling way. Regardless of the number of steps, when researchers identify specific problems, engage in the scientific inquiry process, consider the policy context of their findings, and communicate results effectively, then the odds of having their research be “picked up” by policymakers should greatly increase.

A Brief Example In our own research, we have followed these traditional strategies. For example, over the past several years, we have been examining the impacts of state performance funding policies on educational outcomes because several states have recently introduced performance funding models to reform higher education finance. Proponents argue this new funding model will result in higher levels of degree completions due to greater institutional “performance,” but there is very little empirical evidence supporting this assumption. So we set out to test these assumptions by asking: To what extent does performance funding impact degree completions? Public Policy and Higher Education

17

In our studies, we followed all of the traditional steps: We identified a problem and asked a research question that should resonate with state policymakers, we employed quasi-experimental research designs to achieve strong internal validity in our models, and we discussed policy implications in each paper. Our main finding across each study was that performance funding has had very little (if any) impact on degree completions, so we disseminated our results in policy briefs and have shared our work with policy advocates and policymakers. Despite following the traditional model for conducting policy-relevant scholarship, we have not yet arrived at Step 5, as (to our knowledge) policymakers have not yet utilized these results to inform their policies and practices. A growing number of other studies reaching similar conclusions have suffered a similar fate of being ignored in ongoing policy debates (Rutherford & Rabovsky, 2014; Sanford & Hunter, 2011; Shin, 2010). Despite mounting evidence of modest (and in some cases negative) effects, states continue to adopt these unproven policies, largely driven by advocacy groups and philanthropic organizations interested in advancing a particular policy agenda. This brief example illustrates how the traditional perspective offers an instructive, yet incomplete guide to conducting “policy-relevant” scholarship. Even if we were to follow these traditional steps, there is no guarantee academic research will resonate with policy audiences—this is especially true when the evidence contradicts popular policy agendas. With this in mind, researchers should approach policy scholarship with patience, anticipating their work may not be immediately useful.

Toward an Expanded View of Policy-Relevant Research As the traditional view explains, one way to produce policy-relevant scholarship is by clarifying and being specific about the “policy problem” a study seeks to address. To expand this view, we should also be attentive to the “demand” side of this equation: policymakers may not perceive the identified problem to be of broad or compelling interest to current policy debates. Similarly, the

18

traditional view encourages researchers to choose a strong research design and let the science “speak for itself ” (Shonkoff & Bales, 2011). While strong research designs are certainly desirable in evidence-based policymaking, believing that a recent academic publication should immediately bear on any given policy debate is a na¨ıve assumption (Gormley, 2011). An expanded view highlights the importance of choosing a research study that can endure the test of time. Relatedly, the traditional view assumes that disseminating study results in a timely (and clear) manner will increase the likelihood of having policymakers take an interest in the study (Bardach, 2011). The expanded view highlights the fact that academic research does not hold a monopoly on the supply of information to policymakers; rather, even the most timely and easily understood academic research competes for policymakers’ attention. Furthermore, determining “timeliness” within the policy process can be a difficult and perhaps misguided effort. The traditional view rightly encourages researchers to discuss the policy implications associated with the study’s results and main contributions (Bryman, 2012). But it can be difficult to determine which specific “implications” one ought to focus on in this discussion; therefore, our expanded view encourages higher education scholars to discuss how the behaviors and actions of specific stakeholders (practitioners, students, etc.) might change with policy changes. Similarly, the expanded view encourages researchers to situate their studies in the appropriate “phase” of the policymaking process to help clue readers in regarding how they think the study might be useful at different points in the policy’s lifecycle. By taking a more expanded view that complicates the traditional perspective, we start to view policy research as an intellectual backdrop to public policymaking (Weiss, 1978). This is our aim in our monograph, where we reflect on the role of research in the policymaking process along with the challenges and opportunities of creating “policy-relevant” research in higher education. We argue that scholarship can be highly policy relevant even if it is not immediately so. We also argue that the traditional view of “how to” conduct policy-relevant scholarship is a necessary but insufficient way to supply research for ongoing (and yet to be had) policy debates.

Public Policy and Higher Education

19

Summary When scholars draw connections between their research and policy, they do so in very different ways, which is expected in a diverse research field like ours. Because of this, we strive to generate an inclusive discussion of policy research that can resonate with a variety of different epistemological stances, research methodologies, and academic backgrounds. This diversity is one of the strengths of the ASHE community, though it can also create tensions regarding “how to” frame research in policy-relevant ways. Despite more than three decades of critiques related to the poor quality of policy scholarship in the field of higher education, there is a surprising lack of discourse around specific strategies for framing our research in policy-relevant ways. Past ASHE presidents and other observers who are quick to critique the field for its lack of policy-relevant research have yet to offer guidance on what makes a study “policy relevant.” Similarly, the leading academic journals in the field include policy relevance as a criterion for publication, yet many of the published articles do not discuss specific policy issues or explain how their research findings could inform current or future policy debates. From our perspectives as junior faculty members and early-career professionals, these are troubling trends. We believe higher education research can be quite fruitful in terms of its contribution to public policy debates, and we acknowledge there are many ways to make these contributions, so one of our primary goals is to introduce readers to some promising strategies for conducting policy-relevant research in this field.

20

Sources of Higher Education Policy

T

HIS CHAPTER FOCUSES on formal higher education policy actors at the state and federal levels. A developed understanding of policy actors supports scholars in framing, conducting, and disseminating research that is likely to be policy relevant. This is the case for at least three reasons. First, policy actors trigger the mechanisms of policymaking. They breathe life into the process of policymaking by acting on implied or explicit authority to engage (or disengage) the processes of government that result in policy outcomes. When research addresses these policy actors or the policy instruments they use, it may increase the policy relevance of academic research. This chapter focuses on the former, reflecting our collective assumption that an understanding of policy actors is a necessary precursor to discussing their intersection with, and influence on, mechanisms of policymaking. Second, the identification of the source of a particular, or potential, public policy is a necessary step in designing a policy-relevant study tailored to a specific policy audience; articulating for whom a study is to be relevant requires at least a cursory understanding of the actors in federal and state policymaking. Finally, and relatedly, identifying policy actors is critical to articulation of research utility. That is, policy-relevant research assumes utilization of results, the likelihood of which we believe is enhanced when scholars start research efforts with a clear articulation of which policy actors they are attempting to reach. Federal and state policy actors differ in their policy focuses. Nonetheless, the broad definition of public policy outlined in the prior chapter applies for policymaking at the federal and state levels and involves similar key features Public Policy and Higher Education

21

and processes. As we discuss throughout this chapter, it is important for scholars to situate their research in the right policy context where it is clear that the results have implications for either federal or state policymakers. There are many scenarios where the results of a study are relevant to both levels of governance, and the literature on intergovernmental relations makes this case clear; nevertheless, our task is to locate the principal source of higher education policies at the state and federal levels so we can frame research according to specific policies and policy actors. In the following sections, we introduce and discuss the primary formal higher education policy actors at the state and federal levels and the types of higher education issues actors tend to engage.

State Policy Actors in the Postsecondary Context States play a dominate role in developing and implementing policy for higher education. The U.S. Constitution defers the development, maintenance, and governance of public education to the various states. States have a variety of tools they can utilize to achieve those policy goals. The policy tools can be directed at the institution or at the individual student; they could also be financial approaches or nonfinancial approaches. Financially, states have developed a number of approaches, some of which deal with funding institutions and others that direct state resources to students. These include direct appropriations to institutions, performance funding programs, 529 savings plans, prepaid tuition programs, tuition decentralization, voucher programs, need-based financial aid, and broad-based merit aid programs. However, states also have varying degrees of regulatory, governance, and planning authority over higher education, and therefore their policy tools go far beyond the purse strings. These include, but are not limited to, governance restructuring, accountability tools, institutional report cards, charter colleges, and transfer and articulation agreements. The following sections will discuss the primary formal state policy actors responsible for the development and/or implementation of these and other public policies for higher education. Governors and state legislators are two of the most visible actors in state higher education policymaking. However, they are not the only actors worth considering when attempting to develop a full picture of state higher 22

education policymaking. Two additional actors also play significant roles; these are state higher education executive officers (SHEEOs) and state higher education governance structures. This section will introduce and discuss the role of governors, state legislators, SHEEOs, and state higher education governance structures in forming and implementing state public policy for higher education. .

Governors The constitution of the United States of America reserves considerable rights and powers for the respective states. Therefore, state governments in the United States are relatively powerful. For example, each has its own constitution, education system, militia or military unit (the National Guard), and criminal and civil law codes. They are also responsible for the management of their own internal government. As the chief executive of the state, the governor is ultimately responsible for the administration of all of the state’s responsibilities. To do so, governors generally have significant control over such administrative responsibilities as budgeting and the appointment of many state officials. Governors also play a significant role in the legislative process. Within their respective states, governors can be seen as the chief executive officer (i.e., they are the head of the executive branch, including the state’s bureaucracy within their respective states); legislative leader; head of their political party; chief policymaker and policy implementer; chief budget officer; and chief opinion leader. Despite the similarities among the fifty states in regard to the role of the governor, there remains significant difference in the power each governor has to impact policymaking within their respective states. Beyle (2004) developed two rankings of gubernatorial power. The first is “personal powers” of governors. This measure includes factors that vary from person to person and from election to election. Among the factors are the governors’ electoral mandate (how much the governor won his or her election by), political ambition (the governor’s route to office), personal future (where a governor is in his or her term of office), and job performance (public opinion). The second is the “institutional powers” of governors, which are generally set by state law. The factors included here are: the degree to which executive branch officials Public Policy and Higher Education

23

are elected separately or together as a team, the tenure potential of the governor (how long he or she may potentially hold office), appointment power (how many officials a governor may appoint), budget power of the governor (in what ways the governor may control and/or influence the budget process within their respective states), veto power (what type of veto power the governor has and how easily his or her veto can be overridden by the legislature), and party control (the degree to which the governor’s party controls the legislature). In the political science literature, researchers have examined the influence of gubernatorial powers (generally the institutional powers of the governor) on a variety of policy and finance outcomes in the states. And, among other things, this research has confirmed that variation in the institutional powers of governors impacts the likelihood of policy innovation and adoption in the states (e.g., Beyle, 2004). Governors play an important role in the governance of higher education and in policy development for higher education, although the extent of such influence varies from state to state, as well as over time. Moos and Rourke (1959) argue, “The state governor is the most prominent single official in a college’s relation to state government” (p. 234). More recently, Lingenfelter, Novak, and Legon (2008) state the relationship in even stronger terms, asserting: Governors have unmatched power to set an agenda for higher education and to mobilize other political and civic leaders in pursuit of that agenda. In most states, governors are the most powerful actor in influencing the allocation of state funds and in shaping tax policy, even though they must accommodate legislative agendas and win legislative support for their programs . . . (pp. 8–9) Governors, to a greater or lesser extent, may be involved in setting appropriations levels for colleges and universities; appoint members of a state’s governance structure for higher education (including the chief executive officer and/or board members); influence whether a state adopts a financial aid program for higher education and, if so, what form the program takes and the level of funding it receives; impact the decision to restructure the governance 24

of higher education in their state; and influence the types of performance and accountability programs adopted within their state, among other things. Concerning the role of the governor in state higher education governance, policymaking, and finance discussed earlier, a growing literature has been developing that specifically examines the role and impact of the governor in higher education policymaking. For example, a limited literature has assessed the impact of gubernatorial power on the level of state funding for higher education and found that variation in budget powers of the governor is significantly associated with variation in state support for higher education (e.g., McLendon, Hearn, & Mokher, 2009). Additionally, gubernatorial power has been shown to impact state capital support for higher education (Ness & Tandberg, 2013; Tandberg & Ness, 2011). The role of the governor in reforming or restructuring state higher education governance structures has also been examined (e.g., McLendon, 2003a; McLendon, Deaton, & Hearn, 2007). These examinations have highlighted the critical role played by governors in these efforts. In fact, the governor has often served as the most significant actor in efforts to reform and restructure higher education governance structures in their respective states (McLendon & Ness, 2003). Despite these recent attempts to evaluate empirically the impact of gubernatorial power on state finance decisions for higher education, and general agreement on the importance of governors in higher education, scant research exists. As Christakis (2009) argues: The lack of attention to gubernatorial power over public higher education presents a striking void in the examination of a central figure in a state’s relationship with its public university system. (p. 98) Despite the relative lack of attention given to governors in the higher education literature, those higher education researchers wishing to conduct policy-relevant research would be wise to consider the governor as a potential audience.

State Legislatures State legislatures play a key role in state higher education policymaking. They are the primary lawmakers in each of the 50 states, maintain the “power of Public Policy and Higher Education

25

the purse” (appropriations), and play key governmental oversight roles. These responsibilities enable them to impact higher education in a variety of ways. While the lawmaking responsibility of legislatures is more widely understood and recognized, the power of the purse and the oversight responsibilities are no less important. Lawmaking. State legislatures, similar to the U.S. Congress, have the constitutional power to create laws. The process of creating a law follows a general process where a legislator (or legislators) first drafts up a proposed bill that, if advanced through the legislature, could become law. After drafting a legislative proposal, legislators then shop it around among other legislators in order to solicit cosponsors and broad support. Assuming it has support, the legislation is then submitted to the General Assembly (House or Senate) leadership who determine what to do with it: kill it, submit it to one or more committees, or (in some cases) submit it directly to a floor vote. In each state, legislation must be passed by both the House and Senate (except in Nebraska, which only has a unicameral legislature) and then signed by the governor. Lawmaking is both an art and a science with many interested parties and advocacy coalitions (e.g., fellow lawmakers, interest groups and lobbyists, citizens, governmental agency officials, etc.) weighing in on the legislative proposals in their attempt to influence the policy. State legislatures have been active in several higher education policy domains, like transfer and articulation policies; performance funding models; determining which degrees can be offered by what types of institutions; textbook use and prices; tenure and promotion policy; and establishing (or amending) student financial aid programs. While many policy proposals are put on the legislative agenda, the majority of proposals never become law. Nevertheless, each legislative session is watched closely for possible changes to the higher education policy environment. The often incremental nature of policymaking suggests that trends in the substance of introduced legislation provide a measure of foreshadowing of key emergent policy issues. Appropriations. State legislatures have the responsibility to establish and pass the states’ budgets. Unlike the federal budget, state budgets must

26

always be “balanced” where revenues and expenditures must be equal—state constitutions prohibit them to run deficits. Balancing the budget is a complicated task that ultimately reveals the states’ policy and political priorities. This is where lawmakers decide which budgetary items must be cut back, held steady, or increased. The budget process creates “winners and losers,” and higher education competes for funds with other state priorities like public K–12 education, Medicaid, transportation, and corrections. Unlike many of these other public services, higher education is not compulsory (like K–12 education) and is not an entitlement program (like Medicaid). Unlike transportation and corrections, higher education can easily pass costs along to its users by charging tuition. No responsibility of state legislatures gets more attention and scrutiny than the budget. The governor and executive branch agencies are heavily involved in the budgetary process as are interest groups, lobbyists, and many from the general public. Likewise, the media covers the process closely. State appropriations for higher education are included in states’ budgets and are an area of significant scholarly interest (see Tandberg & Griffith, 2013). Scholars have traced the ebb and flow of state support since the early 1960s and have found, among other things, which state legislatures like to use higher education as the “balance wheel” in budgets (Delaney & Doyle, 2011; Hovey, 1999). When state budgets are tight (like during economic downturns), they will often cut from higher education deeper than other areas to help balance the budget. Generally, legislatures have restored all or some of the lost revenue when their budgets become more flush, but it can take several years to catch back up for the lost public support. Oversight. State legislatures provide oversight of all governmental activities. This is done through such activities as holding public hearings; creating task forces, committees, and working groups; reviewing governmental budgets; and investigating or regulating governmental and nongovernmental actors. Much of the work of state legislatures is carried out within their respective standing committees, which are organized to deal with the vast majority of policy issues facing state governments. In higher education, these committees are often organized around topical areas like finance, program approvals,

Public Policy and Higher Education

27

workforce development, and human resources. In each state, both legislative chambers (i.e., Senate and House) have standing committees or subcommittees responsible for monitoring these higher education issue areas. These committees and subcommittees will receive legislation dealing with higher education, and they will then seek to understand how a particular proposal might affect various stakeholder groups and the financial implications of policy reforms. They may even identify mechanisms for holding colleges accountable for achieving the state’s policy goals, all of which are forms of oversight that legislators have over higher education. Attributes of State Legislatures. There is significant diversity among the legislatures in the United States. This diversity is manifest in a number of ways and has significance for how they do their job and for the decisions they make. One way political scientists categorize state legislatures is by how “professional” they are. Legislative professionalism represents the degree of institutional resources in the legislature (e.g., full-time staff, session length, and member pay), enabling it to resemble and behave like the U.S. Congress— the nation’s foremost professionalized legislative body (Squire, 2000). Legislative professionalism has generally been linked with higher public spending (Squire & Hamm, 2005) and has been found to positively impact spending for higher education, including higher education’s share of total state expenditures plus a number of other state policy outcomes for higher education (Tandberg, 2010a). Another way of considering state legislatures is through the lens of partisanship. Scholars have done this in a couple of ways: the first is party control, and the second is party representation. For example, single-party control where both chambers of the legislature are controlled by the same party has been associated with decreased state support of higher education (e.g., Tandberg, 2010b). When faced with economic shocks, unified governments react quickly by adjusting state spending priorities, which in turn makes it easier for states to cut higher education funding (Alt & Lowry, 1994). Regarding party representation, researchers have found that Republicans tend to prefer lower spending and less government control (thus, less support for higher education), while Democrats tend to prefer increased investment in social programs and a more proactive government (McLendon, 2003b). 28

State Higher Education Executive Officers Each state has at least one central administrative entity, led by an executive officer (the State Higher Education Executive Officer or “SHEEO”), responsible for overseeing public postsecondary institutions. In their roles as heads of the agencies formally charged with overseeing higher education at the state level, SHEEOs often play a critical role in the development and implementation of state higher education policy and finance. SHEEOs maintain important responsibilities in their states, and other policymakers view SHEEOs as crucial agents of influence within the policy domain of higher education (Lingenfelter, 2012). Lyman Glenny (1959), an early analyst of state governance of higher education, wrote: In his [the SHEEO] relationships with the agency he acts as secretary, as staff director, and as chief initiator of policy recommendations. . . . He is the official contact for the agency with all persons in and out of the system. . . . As initiator of recommendations, he can wield more power and exert more influence on policy than any other person in the system. . . . He not only enforces agency decisions but also interprets their intent and scope and supplements policy with necessary administrative directives. (pp. 51–52) More recently, Lingenfelter et al. (2008) articulated the roles and responsibilities of SHEEOs to include the following: (a) advising governors and legislators on higher education policy; (b) making recommendations to the state with respect to the allocation of resources; (c) overseeing regulatory systems designed to promote quality in the academic offerings of constituent campuses; (d) administering state grant programs to students or institutions; and (e) collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and sharing data and information. Of course, the precise configuration of a SHEEO’s duties in a given state and the extent of his or her influence in the execution of those duties vary widely. Nevertheless, every SHEEO has a twofold responsibility. On the one hand, the SHEEO is responsible for ensuring accountability in public higher education, a role that entails the various duties named earlier. On the other hand, SHEEOs bear a responsibility to the colleges and universities in the Public Policy and Higher Education

29

SHEEO’s state. The institutional arrangements defining the precise nature of this orientation (i.e., an orientation to the state or to the campuses) vary across states. Although systematic study of the relationship between agency heads and policy outcomes in many domains of state and federal policy has long been a fixture of research in the fields of public policy and public administration, the topic has received scant attention among higher education policy specialists. Although SHEEOs are a visible and potentially significant actor in the state policy domain of higher education, researchers have largely ignored them. This oversight is remarkable, in part, because of the extent of some SHEEOs’ influence. Nevertheless, as SHEEOs are significant policy actors, authors wishing to conduct postsecondary policy-relevant research ought to consider SHEEOs as a potential audience.

State Higher Education Governance Structures Each state has a state-level entity that is responsible for providing some level of oversight and coordination of public higher education. These entities are commonly referred to as state governance structures. State governance structures for higher education serve two primary functions: they govern public colleges and universities and/or they coordinate statewide postsecondary services. Sometimes their governance includes private colleges and universities in addition to public institutions. Governance may happen at the college or university level via institution-level boards or at the state level via state boards for higher education. Either way, these boards have ultimate fiscal authority and often hire their chief executive (the president/chancellor or SHEEO), among other responsibilities. Statewide coordination is commonly used to describe the formal actions and policies used to help ensure that a state’s colleges’ and universities’ activities are in some way aligned with state priorities. There is normally an emphasis on efficient use of resources, access, program coverage and distribution, and system alignment. State governance structures, no matter their form, commonly exist to provide policy planning (e.g., developing master plans) and policy analysis (e.g., assessing potential implications of policy proposals). They are also involved in campus dispute resolution and helping ensure mission definition among 30

campuses. Governance can also come in the form of academic program review and approval, developing budgets and allocating resources, or even by deciding how states distribute financial aid or administer assessment and accountability systems. Governance takes many other varieties, like overseeing professional licensing and implementing statewide projects and initiatives. The range of activities subject to state-level governance is wide reaching, and some states engage with campuses in more collaborative ways than others. While governance structures may share similar goals and responsibilities, they often look very different from state to state. The actual form these governance structures take, and the depth and breadth of their responsibilities, differ from state to state. McGuinness (2003) developed a state governance typology based on (in descending order) strength of control: (a) consolidated governing board, (b) regulatory coordinating board, (c) weak coordinating board, and (d) planning agency. Consolidated governing boards and regulatory coordinating boards possess direct control over the academic and fiscal affairs of campuses. Weak coordinating boards’ and planning agencies’ authorities are limited to reviewing campus policies and making recommendations to the legislature or governor. In this second group of governance models, decision authority is less centralized, which allows individual campuses to have far more autonomy to pursue campus goals (McGuinness, 2003). Additionally, a number of higher education policy scholars have argued that higher education agencies serve as “boundary-spanning” organizations (e.g., Nicholson-Crotty & Meier, 2003; Tandberg, 2013). Boundaryspanning organizations and actors sit at the nexus of an organization and those outside entities and actors that the organization most frequently interacts with. These outside entities or actors might be customers, competitors, funders, or those over which the primary organization has some sort of oversight or regulatory responsibility. Additionally, individuals and/or offices may fill a boundary-spanning role within a larger organization and span boundaries between offices and officials within the organization (Adams, 1976). One of the primary roles of boundary-spanning organizations and actors is facilitating and controlling the flow of information between the various entities and actors. Guston (2001) has argued that state and federal agencies provide excellent examples of boundary-spanning organizations in that they often Public Policy and Higher Education

31

sit at the nexus of outside organizations and communities and the political/ governmental world. State higher education governance structures (as a type of state agency) sit at the nexus of state government, the institutions, and the public. This boundary-spanning role of state higher education governance structures is in keeping with the original motivation behind the expansion of the state coordinating boards for higher education that took place in mid-20th century. Indeed, one of the primary reasons states created higher education governance structures in the first place was to serve as buffers between the institutions and the states. Hearn and Griswold (1994) described the rationale for the establishment of statewide boards in this way: The growing size and complexity of public higher education caused increased political infighting for resources and increased lobbying by institutions. In response, legislators demanded expert, neutral evaluation of institutional needs. (p. 161) And Ness (2010a) further explained: Regardless of the degree of centralization, the agencies largely emerged in the mid-twentieth century with the primary function to buffer state government from postsecondary education institutions. This buffering (or boundary) role of state agencies best represents their function as intermediary organizations. (p. 40) The ability to buffer or condition the impact of the institutions on state policymakers (and vice versa) places the state higher education governance structure in a significant and potentially powerful position. As McLendon, Hearn, and Deaton (2006) argue, “Governance, therefore, ‘matters’ because organizational and authority structures help determine whose interests will prevail” (p. 19). Increasingly, research has documented how the form of postsecondary governance employed in a state can impact state policy behavior, including the types of policies adopted and state funding for higher education (e.g., Doyle, 2006; Hearn & Griswold, 1994; Nicholson-Crotty & Meier, 2003; Tandberg, 2010a, 2013). Likewise, Nicholson-Crotty and Meier (2003) and Tandberg (2013) have documented the role and effect of the 32

higher education governance structure as boundary spanner in the state higher education appropriations process. The weight of evidence suggests that state higher education governance structure plays a critical role in the oversight and policy processes for higher education in the various states. They often have significant authority and/or responsibility and, regardless of their formal powers, have the potential to influence all aspects of the state policy process for higher education. The staff that makes up the structures also tend to be experts in their respective areas (finance, policy analysis, etc.) and often have advanced degrees in higher education or related fields. Therefore, policy scholars can often find receptive audiences among these state agencies and would be wise to consider them when developing, conducting, and disseminating their research.

Federal Policy Actors in the Postsecondary Policy Context The policy actors represented in the discussion of state policy includes many of the most influential players in the higher education policy landscape. But state actors are not the only governmental sources of postsecondary policy. Next, we turn to a second critical source of higher education policy for scholars to assess for relevance to their research agendas: federal policy actors. Unfortunately, the research on policy development for higher education at the federal level is relatively scant compared to state-level studies. A few scholars have undertaken this topic from differing perspectives, building on historical works analyzing the relationship between higher education and federal policymaking (e.g., Bailey, 1975; Gladieux & Wolanin, 1976). For example, Cook (1998) authored a book on the lobbying efforts of the national higher education associations, which highlighted the impact of lobbying organizations on the policymaking role of the president, the various federal agencies, and, most especially, Congress. Others have provided descriptive overviews of the federal policymaking for higher education and the influencers and interplay between federal policy outcomes and higher education institutional operations (e.g., Gladieux, King, & Corrigan, 2005; Public Policy and Higher Education

33

Parsons, 1997; Wolanin, 2003). Despite what we view as too little attention to the federal policy development process as it relates to higher education, the federal government remains an important source of policy affecting postsecondary education and an appropriate target for scholarship intending to impact policy ideas, formation, adoption, and implementation. Although the federal and state governments are involved in developing and implementing public policy for higher education, the constraints in the U.S. Constitution, which defer the development, maintenance, and governance of public education to the various states, result in a very different relationship between the federal government and the various institutions of higher education than exists between the state governments and those same institutions. We find that federal higher education policy development and implementation is different from what occurs at the state level in two main ways: the policy domains and the political arena (Cook, 1998; Parsons, 1997). While the “stages” of policymaking discussed in the first chapter remain relevant, the policy and political dynamics at the federal level are quite different from those at the state level. First, federal policy issues are primarily debated in terms of their specific legislative context simply because different legislative committees take them up. For example, the education and workforce committees take up the Higher Education Act (HEA), while agriculture committees take up the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARM) Bill, and immigration committees take up the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. While HEA, the FARM Bill, and DREAM Act focus on three different issue areas, they all relate to higher education in one way or another. Agriculture school research funding is tied to the FARM Bill, in-state residency status for undocumented students is affected by the DREAM Act, and student financial aid eligibility and benefits are determined through HEA. Federal policy influencing higher education may or may not originate from an education issue space. To further illustrate this point, newly crafted regulations dictating postsecondary institutions’ reports of campus crimes emerged from the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a piece of legislation not immediately face-evident as relating to higher education. 34

Despite the range of legislative actions that can impact federal higher education policy, the federal government is primarily involved in higher education through student financial aid, tax benefits, research support, and civil rights (Wolanin, 2003). While the HEA authorizes the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to oversee such issues as student financial aid, international education programs, Minority Serving Institutions, and TRIO and GEAR UP programs, federal higher education policy is not limited to HEA or ED. Policies can also be set through spending bills (e.g., Budget Reconciliation), negotiated rulemaking, and even through executive orders made by the president. In fact, many of the most significant financial aid policy reforms occur through spending bills rather than education committees. Similarly, other federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Bayh–Dole Act, Affirmative Action, and the Internal Revenue Code are places where higher education policies are often made (Gladieux et al., 2005; Wolanin, 2003). Federal policy actors influential in many of the aforementioned higher education policy issue domains include the president and related executive offices and officials; administrative agencies; Congress; and federal courts. Each of these actors has differing mechanisms to drive or influence policy outcomes such as legislation (Congress), regulation (administration), judicial rulings (courts), and administrative orders (president’s office; Cook, 1998; Parsons, 1997). In addition, all four federal actors have the power of the bully pulpit—the degree of effectiveness that is determined by a combination of policy issue, timing, personality, and governmental norms. As issues arrive on the agendas of these federal policy actors, their level of interest is likely due to an unforeseeable combination of events: long-held personal beliefs, institutional agendas, political and fiscal conditions, and public interest. The intent here is to present an overview of the key actors engaged in the federal postsecondary policy process. Therein, we touch on their roles in varying stages of the process, their points of leverage and influence, and their ability to act either alone or in tandem with other actors. Our discussion is intended to assist researchers in crafting studies that offer a more nuanced understanding of the contextual positioning of policy actors at the federal level. Approaching a research study with the varying role of federal policy actors in mind, we assert, increases the likelihood research is found relevant and useful Public Policy and Higher Education

35

by those charged with shaping, adopting, regulating, and evaluating federal higher education policy.

The President and Executive Offices Presidents, and their agents acting through various executive offices, have limited direct influence on higher education policy. Nonetheless, they play an increasingly powerful role in shaping the discourse and discussion of policy issues, and specifically in placing them on national policy agendas. As such, higher education policy scholars should consider both (a) how their research agendas are potentially aligned with or run counter to the policy preferences being articulated through the executive branch and (b) the ways in which this positioning vis-`a-vis executive branch rhetoric and policy preference frames likely channels of distribution for a particular piece of scholarly work. We are in no way suggesting that research should be shaped by the implied or expressed preferences articulated by the executive branch of the federal government. Rather, we suggest consideration of those preferences as significant influencers on the policy environment in which one may find their policyfocused research being disseminated and consumed. An Example of the Executive Bully Pulpit: College Completion. Like most states, a policy preference expressed by the federal government has been known to increase postsecondary educational attainment. A key method of conveying the importance of educational attainment—that is, indicating an outcome preference (more degrees) that related policy should aim to support—is the use of the president’s ability to command attention in public dialogues, expressed use of the bully pulpit. President Obama has repeatedly, and more frequently than predecessors, called for a dramatic increase of college degree completion rates to meet the need of economic development and retain an internationally competitive workforce. For example, over the course of the presidency of George W. Bush, higher education was referred to 1.4 times in State of the Union addresses. In contrast, President Obama has, on average, made reference to higher education 12.5 times in his State of the Union addresses.2 Likewise, the Obama administration established a goal of the United States again leading the world in the percentage of the population ages 25–34 having attained “tertiary” education by 2020. 36

This rhetoric and goal setting has been tied to a number of significant policy changes and policy proposals. Among them are dramatic changes in the distribution of federal student loans, significant increases in the size of the Pell grant, and increased federal oversight of the for-profit sector. Even more ambitious policy changes have been proposed by the Obama administration including a performance-based financial aid system and a performance reporting system, each of which remains in the debate and development stage. While historically the primary involvement of the federal government came through the funding of student financial aid and grants and contracts with institutions and institutional researchers, the Obama administration appears to have ushered in a new level of involvement in the development of federal public policy for higher education at least rhetorically. This increased use of the rhetorical power of the presidency is one way that the executive branch impacts the placement of policy ideas onto federal policy agendas. While not always self-evident, scholars should consider the ways in which their research agendas tie into issue framing at the federal level; doing so provides an opportunity to increase utilization of their work.

Federal Administrative Agencies Federal agencies are important actors in the higher education policymaking process. Individuals who work within federal agencies, often referred to as bureaucrats, put government policy into practice, making agencies and the individuals who work within them critical influencers on policy implementation. When legislative actors in Congress create a new program or expand an existing one, they do not establish all the rules and details governing how the policy reflected in statute will be implemented. Rather, Congress passes establishing legislation that grants authority to agencies or other administrative bodies to construct the specific rules, regulations, and protocols that will be used to carry out the goals of the adopted policy. The process of designing the structure of implementation is bounded somewhat by statutory language, but federal agencies have a fair amount of autonomy in interpreting and carrying out the intentions of Congress. As such, the process by which adopted statutes are codified through implementation of rules and regulations—a process known as rulemaking—is worthy of careful consideration Public Policy and Higher Education

37

by scholars hoping to increase the policy relevance of their research agendas at the federal level. Specifically, researchers may find individuals participating in rulemaking a receptive audience for issue-relevant studies. Rulemaking. Federal agencies construct the rules by which programs operate and are implemented, and these rules carry legal authority on par with laws. The process of constructing policy-implementing rules and regulations is known as rulemaking, which consists of a series of steps or stages (Schuck, 2004). However, herein we discuss the process of rulemaking in holistic terms, reflecting our belief that rulemaking as a whole is fertile ground for scholars to mine for research questions and identification of potential end users of their research. When a statute is adopted, any agency charged with implementation of the policy change must put forward a series of proposed rules that get published in the Federal Register. The proposed rules are open to public review and comment. Often public hearings are held, and interested coalitions or individuals can submit comments or documents to agency officials (Schuck, 2004). Scholars who have conducted relevant research may find this process of public comment and review an appropriate avenue for disseminating their work. In addition to open public comments, when generating specific language that outlines the proposed rules governing a policy, agencies have been encouraged by Congress (Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 1990) to engage in a process of negotiated rulemaking. Negotiated rulemaking opens the process of creating proposed regulations to those likely to be affected by a policy upon implementation. The nomination of proposed negotiators is a public process, and the controlling agency names a negotiated rulemaking committee that is charged with making a good faith effort to reach consensus on regulations. Once proposed language becomes finalized, the administrative rules and regulations serve to implement an adopted policy (Schuck, 2004). An Example of Negotiated Rulemaking in the Higher Education Context: Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The U.S. Department of Education (ED) frequently engages in negotiated rulemaking over rules and regulations that govern the behavior and actions of postsecondary institutions participating in Title IV Federal Financial Aid programs. This process of drafting rules that govern policy implementation makes 38

the ED a major actor in the postsecondary policy issue space. For example, in early 2014 in response to Congressional reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), ED convened a negotiated rulemaking committee to create regulations for implementing portions of the VAWA statute dealing with sexual violence prevention and crime incident reporting by postsecondary institutions. In keeping with the structure of negotiated rulemaking, ED appointed a panel of rulemakers from public nominations. Because regulations would ultimately include new reporting and compliance requirements on the part of postsecondary institutions, the rulemaking committee consisted of higher education constituents who would be impacted by any formalized regulatory language. Administrators from four-year, two-year, and proprietary institutions, sexual assault victim rights advocates, student advocates, campus police and judicial conduct officers, and university attorneys constructed the rulemaking panel (U.S. Department of Education, 2014a). Through the process of formalized negotiations held over a three-month period, issues were debated and proposals for regulatory language considered prior to publishing rules after a comment of public review. As negotiators considered draft regulatory language, there are several opportunities for policyfocused scholars to impact deliberations. First, relevant content experts may be empowered to brief the negotiators by the consent of the panel. For example, during the VAWA negotiated rulemaking, experts on cyber stalking and violence prevention programming participated in subcommittee working groups that directly impacted the proposed regulatory language (U.S. Department of Education, 2014b). In addition, any negotiator may bring forward documents and informational resources, including academic literature, on topics of relevance. Through both participation in subworking groups and through submission of scholarly papers, academics have an avenue to participation in the regulatory process that we believe, to date, has been underutilized. Negotiated rulemaking occurs throughout the federal government and eventually becomes the legally binding guidance for implementing a full range of federal policies (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005; Woods, 2013). As the number of federal policy issues impacting higher education continues to expand, the process of negotiated rulemaking offers scholars a unique Public Policy and Higher Education

39

opportunity to impact a specific set of policy actors at a defined stage of the policymaking process. Key Federal Agencies. Among the multitude of federal departments and agencies, several are of specific importance for scholars of higher education policy to consider throughout the research process given their role in higher education policy formation and implementation. Foremost is the U.S. Department of Education, which administers all federal financial aid programs and maintains national data sets germane to higher education through the National Center for Education Statistics. Financial aid programs such as the Pell grant, direct leading student loans, and TRIO and GearUP all are administered via ED and have been of interest to higher education policy scholars. But other departments and agencies are also important for researchers to consider in designing, conducting, and imagining audiences for their work. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs (i.e., student veteran financial aid); the Department of Health and Human Services (i.e., healthcare rules for student workers and university employees such as adjuncts); Department of Labor (i.e., workforce retraining block grants); and the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Defense (i.e., primary research funding) are also involved in higher education policymaking, primarily through the funding of research and other direct student service programs. Therefore, while ED is the key agency actor in federal higher education policymaking, several other administrative agencies play important roles in the broader higher education policy landscape. Identification of relevant federal agencies is a critical step to designing, conducting, and disseminating policy-relevant scholarship.

Legislative Branch: Congress As it does with most issues, the legislative branch of the federal government plays a central role in higher education policymaking. As the actor responsible for legislative adoption, Congress has the authority to pass statutes that impact multiple facets of the higher education enterprise. In addition to the adoption of statute, Congress has among its many powers the ability to hold hearings, review and approve government budgets and program funding, establish task forces and special working groups to look at specific policy issues, and 40

investigate governmental and nongovernmental actors. Although the expression of these powers, and others, is diffused among members of the legislative branch and the Senate and House chambers in unequal ways, in totality they offer the actors within the legislative sphere a wide and deep resource of authority to impact higher education policy. Key Congressional Committees. Many of the aforementioned legislative powers afforded to Congress are actualized through standing committees. Committees within both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate provide an organizing structure for dealing with the vast number of policy issues that members of the legislative branch may consider. Standing committees in each chamber are in place around key groupings of issues, including education broadly, and other federal actors often defer to these committees’ expertise. These committees are powerful subactors on federal policymaking, and therefore should be given careful consideration by scholars looking to increase the policy relevance of their research. In the House of Representatives, the Education and the Workforce Committee has authority over the vast majority of issues related to education in all forms supported by the federal government. A specific subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Higher Education and the Workforce, has jurisdiction over critical pieces of higher education legislation. In the Senate, the committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) is a central actor in work on policy issues related to higher education. Together, these two committees cover the majority of issue areas of specific relevance to postsecondary education scholars. For instance, these committees originate such legislation as the HEA; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; postsecondary career and technical education, apprenticeship programs, and job training including the Workforce Investment Act, vocational rehabilitation, and training programs from immigration funding; science and technology programs; and adult basic education and family literacy programs. Given the range of issues covered by the two education-related Congressional committees, it is critical that scholars working on postsecondary policy are attuned to the membership of the committees, the way in which these bodies work, the mechanisms they employ to do their work, and the Public Policy and Higher Education

41

opportunities they provide to be both dependent and independent variables in policy-focused research. That is, Congressional actors in the policy process present fertile ground for scholars both of the policy process itself and of the substance outcomes of those policies or evaluation thereof.

The Judiciary A final policy actor in the federal sphere of higher education policymaking is the judiciary. Federal courts have the power of judicial review, meaning that they can declare legislation unconstitutional. Due to their power of judicial review, courts in the United States are influential in the policymaking process (Baum, 2012). While the federal courts are not often identified as originators of policy that impacts postsecondary education, the impact of judicial decisions over the past decade on questions of affirmative action in particular has shaped the policy environment within which postsecondary institutions act. Moreover, higher education policy scholars have made intentional and wellcrafted attempts to make research available to and impactful upon the judiciary. In both the Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Supreme Court decisions we see evidence of the use of academic scholarship in both majority and minority opinions. Although the judiciary is not often thought of as a major actor in higher education policy, on specific issues and where relevant, researchers should consider the ways in which their scholarship can speak directly to or emerge from outcomes of judicial review and decision.

Summary In this chapter, we have taken up the task of identifying state and federal policy actors who play central roles in the multistage process of policymaking. We believe scholars can best situate their research in the right policy context where it is clear that the results have implications for either federal or state policymakers by considering policy actors throughout their research process. By locating the principal sources of and actors on higher education policies at the state and federal levels, researchers can frame studies according to specific policies and policy actors. Doing so increases the likelihood that a study will 42

reach its intended audience and be found of relevance to policy actors in the unique context. For individuals aiming to increase the relevance of their scholarship to state-level or federal policy audiences, being cognizant of the origins and influencers involved in relevant issue areas is a cornerstone of impactful research.

Public Policy and Higher Education

43

Supplying Policy-Relevant Research

T

HE PREVIOUS CHAPTER OUTLINED some of the key policy actors at both the federal and state levels. These actors have many pressing demands and their appetite for academic research is often less than what researchers may wish. In this chapter, we shift our attention away from the sources of public policy for higher education (the policymakers) and their “demand” for policy-relevant research and focus more on how researchers might “supply” academic work to policy audiences. Our goal is to identify strategies researchers can use to situate their work in more policy-relevant ways. Considering our discussions in the first chapter on how research is not immune to the politics of policymaking, these strategies do not guarantee our work will be relevant to policy debates. However, by addressing the questions and ideas raised in this chapter, we suspect academic research will have greater potential to be incorporated into public policy debates. The central question to this chapter is “How do we frame our research to increase the likelihood it will be in demand?” More specifically, how do we communicate our work to policy audiences? And why is it important we do so? We respond to these questions throughout this chapter and offer strategies to help guide researchers interested in making their work more (or more explicitly) policy relevant. To that end, we do not offer a prescriptive formula for researchers to follow. Instead, we outline strategies and present “framing elements” that increase the likelihood that research will be of use to policy audiences. These framing elements build upon traditional strategies for connecting research and policymaking, but they offer what we call an “expanded

44

view” that is sensitive to the political, temporal, and often idiosyncratic nature of public policymaking. Before discussing these strategies, it is important to step back and consider the environment in which academics produce policy research. Academic researchers are primarily interested in discovering new knowledge, building and testing theories, and advancing research methods. These activities are often valued in the tenure process, but may not be as highly valued in the public policy sphere. Depending on the institution and department, the tenure process may reinforce long-standing beliefs that publishing in academic journals is more prestigious than engaging in public policy debates. While both are valued, we suspect faculty members and graduate students could feel discouraged from conducting policy research in fear it could be seen as advocacy or policy analysis. Is there a difference between academic research and policy analysis/advocacy? We argue “yes,” and there is a body of literature distinguishing academic “policy research” from advocacy-oriented “policy analysis” (Lauen & Tyson, 2009; Weimer & Vining, 2005). When conducting academic policy research, or policy scholarship, scholars are writing to an audience of other academics. Here, it is important to focus on the scholarly contributions (data, methods, theory building, etc.) while remaining agnostic about the politics encapsulating a particular policy. In policy research, the researcher pursues new knowledge for the sake of pursuing new knowledge and to make the early discoveries upon which others can build. This is in keeping with the larger academic research ethos of conducting basic research (such as the type of research conducted within the “hard” sciences within U.S. universities), which is meant to produce new discoveries that advance our fundamental knowledge in basic and systematic ways but which may not have immediate application within the larger market or policy worlds. This is a fundamental and critical contribution that has frequently laid the foundation for latter practical applications that have significantly improved our quality of life. In policy analysis, on the other hand, researchers are rewarded for conducting timely, persuasive, and widely accessible research that advances a

Public Policy and Higher Education

45

particular agenda. This work does not need to go through peer review, it is often less transparent in how the data are analyzed, and it is not designed to develop or test new theories. Policy analysts at think tanks and governmental agencies are less interested in the academic contributions and more interested in such pragmatic questions as whether a policy “works,” how much a reform might cost, whether it is scalable, and how it might affect various constituents. Some examples of organizations conducting policy analysis include New America Foundation, College Board, Brookings Institution, state higher education agencies, the Congressional Budget Office, consulting firms, and several other think tanks, governmental agencies, and membership organizations. Although there are conceptual differences between academic policy research and advocacy-oriented policy analysis, we do not believe these approaches to conducting research are mutually exclusive. Many academics advance new knowledge while also informing public policy agendas, successfully bridging these two approaches. Knowingly or unknowingly policy analysts often utilize the early discoveries and advancements of the policy researchers. Academic policy research and advocacy-oriented policy analysis should both make contributions to any ongoing policy debate; our democracy is founded upon and thrives from this type of public engagement. But there are few reward systems in place that encourage academics to engage in policy analysis and/or advocacy. Instead, academics are rewarded for publishing articles in academic journals that are primarily read by other academics. Because of this, some may argue that academics have a disincentive to engage in public policy debates since the rewards and expectations of tenure prioritize the academic contributions one makes to the field, the definition of which often does not cover work considered policy analysis or advocacy. Despite the apparent disconnect between academic or basic research and the immediate policy debate, we argue that the type of research conducted within our colleges and universities fills an important role in regard to theory development, making new discoveries, and advancing knowledge, all of which over time are bound to impact policy discussion and policy development. Nevertheless, while acknowledging the important role played by basic research, we believe there should be less of an immediate divide between

46

scholarship and policymaking. To help close this divide, we offer some key framing elements that when addressed in a research paper should increase the likelihood of that paper being relevant to policy audiences. Our framing elements include the “traditional” perspective, which focuses on strategies for supplying research, including developing a research question, writing clearly, disseminating results broadly, and exploring policy implications. We argue these are necessary but insufficient strategies for connecting research to policy since some factors that make research “policy relevant” are beyond the control of researchers. Therefore, we add an “expanded” perspective that helps us consider why policy audiences might have an interest in academic research. We assert that the expanded view helps researchers to consider the politics and idiosyncrasies behind why a topic is in high demand for policymakers; it also allows us to consider the role timing plays in making a study more (or less) relevant to policy audiences. These additional considerations, beyond what has traditionally been addressed by scholars aiming to create policy-relevant research, offer a more developed framing of research in higher education and hold the promise of making research in the field of more use and interest to those making policy decisions. It is important to note that through our expanded perspective, we are not calling for a fundamental abandonment of what makes policy/academic research unique from policy analysis. The two are motivated by different yet equally important purposes. Were higher education policy researchers within our academic institutions to wholesale adopt the approaches of their counterparts conducting policy analysis, the resulting loss would be significant. Academic researchers’ focus on methodological rigor allows them to answer questions (no matter how small) with greater confidence and accuracy. Likewise, the theory development process allows for accumulation of knowledge and generalization of results. These contributions are the unique responsibility of academic researchers and are critical to the knowledge development process and ultimately to the policy development process. Our expanded perspective honors these responsibilities while also offering ideas for how academic researchers might make their research even more policy relevant in both the short term and the long term.

Public Policy and Higher Education

47

In the sections that follow, we present traditional and expanded framing elements around five broad themes: problem identification, research design, policy implication, dissemination of results, and utilization of results. Summarized in Table 1, we consider the traditional and expanded perspectives on these five themes, aiming to offer researchers guidance about “how” to situate their work in ways that are unambiguously connected to policy contexts. For example, there are traditional strategies for identifying a policy problem, but there are also other “expanded” issues to consider when framing the policy importance of a particular educational problem. Similarly, there are certain research designs that are strategic to use depending on the “stage” of the policymaking process that the researcher is exploring. And there are strategies researchers can employ to frame the implications of their findings in policyrelevant ways. Finally, when we expand beyond the traditional dissemination strategies and when we consider “how” academic research might be used in policymaking, we can improve the chances that our research will be relevant to policy audiences.

Problem Identification Based on our earlier definition of public policy, we can think of policymaking as the public act of solving/addressing social problems. Problems manifest in various ways, so the onus is on the researcher to focus the readers’ attention on the specific ways policymakers might respond to a given problem. Accordingly, adding a problem statement to an article can help readers understand the nature of the problem, why it is problematic, and how it affects particular stakeholders. In student financial aid research, for example, studies often use “college access” or “college affordability” as the central policy problem. When financial barriers discourage students from pursuing their education, then this results in an underinvestment in human capital (i.e., social inefficiency) and disproportionally affects minority and other underserved students (i.e., social inequality). Federal and state policymakers who want to address problems related to these efficiency or equity concerns may turn to financial aid policy to reverse these trends. Framing research problems that speak to issues of efficiency, equity, or effectiveness can be a useful strategy for situating research in 48

policy-relevant ways (DesJardins, 2002; Dill, 1997). With this in mind, the traditional perspective would ask three basic questions: ∙ What problem does the policy seek to solve? ∙ What level of government is in the best position to solve the problem? ∙ How will solving the problem improve social conditions? And an expanded view would go further by asking: ∙ What are the underlying causes of the problem? ∙ Who determines whether the problem warrants policy action? ∙ Why does the problem persist? These expanded questions critique the power and privileges embedded in the “problem identification” process. Research becomes potentially more policy relevant if it helps researchers and policymakers come to a better understanding of the nature of the problem, both conceptually and practically. The onus is on the researcher to explain not only the policy problem and what level of government is responsible for addressing it, but also precisely what is problematic, to whom, and why.

Research Design Methodological rigor is a responsibility of, and important contribution made by, policy researchers. In regard to a study’s specific research design, it should always be determined in the context of a study’s research question. In policy research, we often ask questions about the origins of policies (“how did x policy come to be?”), the formulation and implementation of policies (“what instruments are used to carry out policy x?”), or the impacts of specific policies (“did y occur because of policy x?”). We will offer brief examples of studies that align their research design with these different types of questions. For a more complete introduction to research designs for policy scholarship, we encourage readers to start with AERA’s Handbook of Education Policy Research (Sykes, Schneider, Plank, & Ford, 2009) and Estimating Causal Effects: Using Experimental and Observational Designs (Schneider, Carnoy, Kilpatrick, Schmidt, & Shavelson, 2007). Public Policy and Higher Education

49

When studying the origins of particular policies, one could look to Erik Ness’s (2007, 2010b) qualitative case studies exploring why state legislators supported (or opposed) the adoption of state merit aid programs. Or from the quantitative perspective, Doyle (2006) used event history analysis to examine the political antecedents associated with adopting these aid programs. In terms of “how” policies are formulated and implemented, Kevin Dougherty and colleagues’ research on state performance funding stands out as an exemplar of using comparative case studies and interviews to explore differences (and similarities) across states in the way these policies are designed and carried out (Dougherty, Jones, et al., 2013; Dougherty, Natow, Bork, Jones, & Vega, 2013; Dougherty, Natow, & Vega, 2012; Dougherty & Reddy, 2013). To determine the impacts of policy interventions, experimental and quasi-experimental designs are often utilized: Garces (2013) examined the impacts of affirmative action bans on educational access using differencein-differences techniques; Rubin (2011) used regression discontinuity to determine the impact of Pell grants on student enrollment; and Long and Kurlaender (2009) used instrumental variables and propensity score matching to examine the impacts of transfer on baccalaureate degree completion. These studies aim to make causal inference, which is necessary for evaluating the impacts of a policy. In each of these brief examples, which we return to in the next chapter, the studies focused on particular “stages” of the policymaking process, making them unambiguously policy relevant. The researchers then applied different research methods that made sense for their particular policy question. When framing a study from the traditional perspective, policy audiences will want the study to answer at least three questions related to the research design: ∙ Does the analysis arrive at convincing conclusions? ∙ Does the study seek to answer causal questions? ∙ How are the results generalizable to other state or institutions? This traditional perspective assumes that a strong research design is sufficient for making a study “policy relevant.” Researchers who supply high quality and rigorous research will be the most policy relevant. From the perspective

50

of advancing knowledge, it is important that we have researchers who focus on developing and applying new and advanced methodological approaches. Such approaches will allow researchers to more accurately answer important policy questions and represent a unique and important contribution of academic researchers. Nevertheless, we can all think of examples of studies that use impressive and innovative research designs, but that answer questions of little consequence to policy audiences. We argue that academic researchers can do both: they can focus on rigorous research designs and produce research that is important to policy audiences. To expand our view of the importance of research design in policy scholarship, we also ask: ∙ Has the study framed the research design according to its policy context? ∙ Why might the research question endure over time? ∙ How does the design advance our understanding of a policy phenomenon? On the first “expanded” question, it is necessary for research designs to make sense in terms of the policy situation. For example, Ness’s (2007, 2010b) studies of the adoption of merit-based financial aid programs should be framed in terms of the origins and adoption of state policy. Accordingly, he drew from the literature on the origins and adoption of policies, drawing from (and adapting) Kingdon’s multiple streams model. His conceptual framework was well aligned with his research questions, and the results were clearly framed in terms of “how did policy x come to be?” Clarifying that our research fits in a particular phase of the policymaking process, as in this example, can help demonstrate how and where a particular study is relevant to policymaking. This blends into the second question, where the onus is on the author to make a clear and convincing case regarding how the research design contributes to our collective understanding of the policy topic. Ness’s example is illustrative because he not only applies but also revises an existing theory to have it well tailored for understanding financial aid policy. One of the shortcomings of using the traditional approach to inform one’s research design is that it prioritizes the immediacy of results. If a study uses the most innovative methods and best data sources, then it should, by virtue of

Public Policy and Higher Education

51

these factors, have immediate relevance on policymaking. This is rarely true, and we encourage scholars to ask enduring questions that can withstand the test of time. Policy interests come and go, the rhythm of policy cycles is much different from academic research, so the third “expanded” question helps us consider whether our research topics will still be relevant two, three, or even ten to twenty years down the road; a framing element that we assert reinforces building a research problem statement on underlying conditions as suggested in Table 1. As we discussed in the first chapter, policy problems are never “solved” and continue to surface year after year. This characteristic allows for the steady accumulation of knowledge, which provides for a broader perspective on what might make something policy relevant. Predicting the rhythms of the policy process is difficult, which is why we believe it is important to address an enduring question before asking one that may simply be the policy community’s “flavor of the week.”

Policy Implications The traditional perspective on policy scholarship encourages authors to discuss the specific policy changes that are likely to occur in the future and how results might inform those debates. This is why articles often have entire sections devoted to “policy implications,” where the author or authors predict what may happen if certain policy changes occurred in response to a study’s findings. These sections can be quite fun to read and write, but what is the purpose of having this discussion in an academic paper? A fundamental challenge when writing an implications section for suppliers of policy-relevant information is that authors do not occupy a position to be making policy decisions. This can be frustrating from the academic perspective, where it is not entirely uncommon to hear “if a policymaker read my paper, then he/she would have known the implications of doing x.” So, it is important that we remember policymakers have many sources of information from which they base their decisions and a journal article or dissertation is but one of them; even if a policy decision maker “finds” a study, it is likely to be but one of many pieces of information that is used to inform policy action. 52

The traditional perspective framing of policy implications discussion asks questions such as: ∙ What specific policy changes are likely to occur in the future given new research-based evidence? ∙ How might these changes affect future policy decisions? We should expand these questions by asking: ∙ What policy context is required for the results of a study to inform future policy debates? ∙ What practitioners or government agents are charged with implementing the policy? ∙ Who benefits and is burdened by policy action (or inaction)? ∙ What perspectives are policy audiences likely to use to filter research findings? When considering these additional questions, the “policy implications” discussion of a journal article can take on a new level of purpose and usefulness. By acknowledging the challenges policymakers face when weighing results from a given study against other competing sources of information, policy scholars can discuss the feasibility that their results might actually contribute to current (or future) policy debates. For example, one could explain how their findings might be used at a future negotiated rulemaking session or in a lobbying effort. There are other ways to make this section of a paper more useful, such as discussing specific details about how people implementing this policy might be able to use findings to inform their practice. This would be a strategic way to make a study fit squarely in line with the “policy implementation” literature, where the implications on practice are prioritized over other items. Similarly, one could discuss the results in terms of who benefits from and who is burdened by a change to the policy. This would expand from the traditional view (“what changes are likely and how might they affect future policy changes?”) by being more direct and thoughtful about “who” is likely affected by future policy changes. Finally, researchers should reflect on how policy audiences are likely to filter Public Policy and Higher Education

53

their findings given their unique context. For example, how might legislators in states with positive fiscal climates react differently to suggested revisions to merit aid programs than those located in states with poor fiscal outlooks? Or, how might a first-term president view administrative actions differently from a second-term president? Considering the environment within which the audience for policy-relevant scholarship sits is critical to enhancing the relevance of research.

Dissemination of Results There are several ways researchers can disseminate their results. The traditional mechanisms are through the peer review process via academic journals or through research conference proceedings. Occasionally, journalists will reach out and ask for more information about a paper or conference presentation without any active outreach effort on behalf of the author. These are the traditional (passive) ways of disseminating results and little more is expected in terms of the reward structures of tenure and academic advancement. Increasingly, scholars are turning to social media outlets (e.g., blogs, Twitter, Facebook) to broaden their audiences and to disseminate their work more broadly. The traditional view of policy scholarship encourages researchers to be proactive in sharing their work and to make their work more broadly accessible. The traditional perspective asks: ∙ What policy audiences would be interested in this study? ∙ How are the results shared with these audiences? ∙ Can the results be communicated without jargon or abstraction? These questions should help researchers identify alternative outlets for sharing their work beyond academic circles. If a researcher is interested in sharing their results with college financial aid officers, for example, then the traditional approach is to share the article with campus financial aid staff or with state, regional, or national financial aid professional organizations. They may even want to share these results with policymakers interested in reforming

54

state or federal aid policy. But considering these audiences are busy and may not have time or interest in reading an academic journal article, the second traditional question encourages us to consider alternative modes of communication to help make the research results accessible for their given audience. For this reason, researchers may want to take to social media to share their work in more accessible ways. This is also reflected in the third question, where writing a blog or distilling results into an executive summary or policy brief might be a more effective strategy for converting the academic research into a digestible format for the desired audience. By avoiding academic jargon, focusing on the salient themes, and through brief and “to the point” observations, our work has better chances of resonating with policy audiences. Still, while we encourage such steps and as researchers find new ways to disseminate their research, these efforts may not get academics much closer to policy audiences. Even when researchers take to social media and have an internet presence, this does not mean their work will be policy relevant: it simply means it is more timely and accessible, without reference to who is accessing it and if those individuals are in fact associated with policymaking decisions. By considering the following “expanded” questions when crafting a dissemination strategy, we can see why. Scholars may increase the likelihood their research is viewed as policy relevant when they are attentive to the following questions: ∙ What specific ways might the results contribute to policy debates? ∙ How will interest in the results endure over time? ∙ How might the results be of use to influencers on policy decision makers? By responding to these questions, researchers might be more strategic in their dissemination efforts. Policy discussions often have little patience for broad or abstract generalizations; the more specific one can be about the contributions of their research and how it bears on policy discussions, the more likely it will be of interest to policy audiences. Studies that draw broad conclusions can still be relevant to policy audiences, to be sure, but the onus is on the author to articulate the specific details about how these might resonate with policymakers.

Public Policy and Higher Education

55

Also, because of the long time horizon that academic research often operates on, it is difficult to disseminate results in a timely manner. For example, one of our own studies was written in 2011 and not accepted until early 2013, only to be published in 2014 (Hillman, 2014). The study was related to upcoming policy changes to student loan cohort default rates that would occur in 2012, but by the time the journal published the final article it was already “old news” for the financial aid policy community. While the study went to great lengths to focus on a specific policy issue and address an emerging issue, it took so long to go through the review process that the results are likely to have little enduring impact. In retrospect, it would have been beneficial to produce a policy brief in conjunction with the full article and disseminate that brief to advocates and other scholars interested in understanding the implications of relaxing the federal cohort default rate policy.

Utilization of Results The traditional perspective focuses on how researchers “supply” results to policymakers, making it difficult to assess how policymakers “utilize” these results in practice. If a policymaker refers to the research when discussing a policy issue, then this is a clear example when research is “used” in policymaking. For example, in the recent Fisher v. University of Texas Supreme Court case on raceconscious college admissions, the American Educational Research Association (AERA) submitted an amicus curiae brief synthesizing the most important research on diversity and affirmative action in higher education. While courts do not necessarily “make” public policy, their rulings certainly guide the direction of future policy action (Baum, 2012). In the Fisher case, the Court was ruling on the constitutionality of using race as one of several factors in the University of Texas–Austin’s admissions policy. The amicus brief drew on 67 academic research studies from the field’s leading experts on diversity and equity, reinforcing the “compelling government interest in student body diversity” and research that upholds narrowly tailored admissions policies (Ancheta, 2013).

56

In discussing the amicus curiae brief, AERA’s president Felice Levine stated (American Educational Research Association, 2013): AERA has a fundamental interest in the accurate presentation of social science research on these important questions of law. Quite simply, we have a responsibility to enable the Court to make its determinations based on the best scientific evidence available. (p. 1) This statement reflects the traditional perspective that researchers must make their work accessible to policy audiences. By “supplying” our research to policy audiences, policymakers will then use this research to inform their decision-making process. In the Fisher case, the Court upheld the legality of university’s admissions policy, in part because of the scientific evidence provided in the brief. This is an example of where the supply of academic research was able to “bear fruit” in the policymaking process. While the authors of these studies may have never expected their research to be used in a Supreme Court case, it illustrates how research can be used by policy audiences. The traditional approach to research utilization makes it relatively easy to know when our research has been “utilized” by policymakers: policymakers refer to it when discussing a policy issue. We can count the number of times academic research is cited in formal government documents, how frequently academics testify to Congress, or how many articles are cited in amicus curiae briefs. From this perspective, we might know how policymakers use our research by asking the following questions: ∙ Do policy audiences have access to the journal article? ∙ Did policymakers reference the study in reports or speeches? ∙ Have researchers discussed their studies with policymakers? While the traditional perspective helps us see how research might be utilized, the expanded view accounts for the realities of translating research to broader audiences. Our expanded view argues that it may not always be clear when or how our research is utilized. As Birnbaum (2000) argues, academic research over time, and through the steady accumulation of knowledge, can

Public Policy and Higher Education

57

alter what is assumed to be true, our perspectives on a problem, and the language we use to discuss a problem. These changes impact public policy and often happen over a significant period of time and in ways that are not always obvious or apparent. It is also important to recognize that it may be unlikely for policymakers to utilize academic research even when that research is completely accessible and even if they refer to it or speak with researchers about their studies. Just because it is supplied does not mean it will be “used.” To consider why this could occur, three basic questions guide our thinking: ∙ How might a study resonate with political principles or values? ∙ What other sources of information compete with this research? ∙ Will the results resonate with policymakers in the future? These questions help us consider why even the most timely studies, and those that use the most advanced methods and are clearly framed around a specific policy issue, still may not resonate with policy audiences. The Fisher case is an uncommon example where research supply and demand were in equilibrium: the courts wanted scientific research and academics supplied it via an amicus brief. But all too often, policymaking is done on an ad hoc basis where research is either unused, misused, or not relevant to guiding policy decisions. This is a long-standing problem as expressed in a 1978 National Research Council report on the role of science in public policymaking when James Q. Wilson (1978) explained: Good social science will rarely be used by government agencies in a timely and effective manner. Most organizations change only when they must, which is to say, when time and money are in short supply. Therefore, most organizations will not do serious research and experimentation in advance. When they use social science at all, it will be on an ad hoc, improvised, and quick-and-dirty basis. (p. 91) This critique can be discouraging for academic researchers who want their work to resonate with current public policy debates. But by responding to the 58

“expanded” questions above, researchers might be able to frame their work in ways that have an enduring appeal for policy audiences. As Wilson expressed, policymakers may not have the time or capacity to engage with academic research. But even when they do, they may discredit studies that do not align with their own worldviews or political preferences. For example, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Representative Tom Petri (R-WI) recently introduced legislation to expand the use of “income share agreements” as a mechanism for financing postsecondary education (Bohan & Edwards, 2014, para. 1). Income share agreements (ISAs) are arrangements where private investors pay for a student’s college education in exchange for a share of that student’s future earnings. This is a market-oriented financing strategy that has no empirical evidence of its efficacy, and one that could actually make college more expensive for students (Hillman, Weichman, Gross, & Berry, 2013). Researchers have examined the effects of loan aversion, debt accumulation, and the limits of using market forces in education (Avery & Turner, 2012; Dowd & Coury, 2006; Dynarski & Scott-Clayton, 2013; Gross, Cekic, Hossler, & Hillman, 2009; Jackson & Reynolds, 2013; Long & Riley, 2007); nevertheless, policymakers may pursue agendas that ignore this research since it does not align with their political or philosophical beliefs. Simply supplying research does not mean it will be “used” by policymakers. Accordingly, researchers should consider how (or whether) their results might be interpreted by nonacademic audiences. Additionally, researchers should consider the “other” sources policymakers draw upon when informing their policy agenda. In the Rubio and Petri example, they are drawing on Milton Friedman’s theories of equity financing and assumptions about how people invest in human capital. In their press release, Rubio and Petri refer to a policy report published by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank promoting market-based solutions to education reform (Rubio, 2014). Here, the politicians are relying on research from a specific ideological perspective and not drawing on academic research that counters this perspective. Political actors on either side of the political aisle engage in this behavior—they rely on research that justifies a particular policy solution and may overlook studies to the contrary. We will discuss the political use of research in the next chapter, but our expanded view helps researchers Public Policy and Higher Education

59

consider reasons why policy audiences might (or might not) have an appetite for their scholarship. The art of communicating results can only go so far as a policymaker is willing or able to listen to or utilize those results.

Summary This chapter introduces “framing elements” that should help researchers design their studies in policy-relevant ways. By considering traditional and expanded strategies, we discuss the promises and pitfalls associated with supplying research to policy audiences. The traditional perspective suggests some basic rules researchers should follow to make their studies more relevant to policymakers. By explaining the policy problem, designing a rigorous study, discussing policy implications, and then disseminating results in an accessible way, academic research will become more policy relevant. While these are necessary elements for making a study “policy relevant,” they are not sufficient strategies for engaging with policy audiences. Research should also be attentive to the expanded views of policy scholarship by acknowledging the political and social construction of policy “problems” and that even the most rigorously designed study can be ignored by policymakers. Similarly, discussions of policy implications should consider the nuances of how people ultimately interpret and implement policies, while realizing that research findings compete with other sources of information. Simply put, linking academic research with public policymaking is more of an art than a science. Researchers can use the traditional perspective as a baseline for engaging with policy issues, but it is important to consider how the expanded perspective complicates policy scholarship. Our advice is for researchers to be intentional about “how” their research fits into the public policymaking process. This includes offering a specific discussion of the policy under investigation and discussions about the level of government that has authority over the policy. It also includes positioning a study around a particular “stage” of policymaking and using a research design that is well aligned with both the research question and the policy context. Paying attention to the nuances of implementation and the intended (and unintended) ways policy audiences might interact with the findings will also help researchers frame 60

TABLE 3 Framing Elements for Guiding Policy Scholarship

1. Problem identification

2. Research design

3. Policy implications

4. Dissemination of results

5. Utilization of results

Traditional

Expanded

What problem does the policy seek to solve? What level of government is in the best position to solve the problem? How will solving the problem improve social conditions? What evidence and artifacts support the findings?

What are the underlying causes of the problem? Who determines whether the problem warrants policy action? Why does the problem persist?

Does the study seek to answer causal questions? How are the results generalizable to other states or institutions? What specific policy changes are likely in the future? How might these changes affect future policy decisions?

What policy audiences would be interested in the study? How are the results shared with these audiences? Can the results be communicated without jargon or abstraction? Do policy audiences have access to the journal article? Did policymakers reference your study in reports or speeches? Have researchers discussed their studies with policymakers?

Public Policy and Higher Education

Has the study framed the research design according to its policy context? Why might the research question endure over time? How does the design advance our understanding of a policy phenomenon? How feasibly will these results inform future policy debates? What practitioners are charged with implementing the policy? Who benefits and is burdened by policy action (or inaction)? What specific ways might the results contribute to policy debates? How will interest in the results endure over time?

How might a study resonate with political principles or values? What other sources of information compete with this research? Will the results resonate with policymakers in the future?

61

their studies in policy-relevant ways. The expanded view also helps us consider the importance of conducting research that can stand the test of time, as policy audiences might not have an immediate demand for research. Instead, policymakers might use research in unpredictable and idiosyncratic ways, so when we are aware of these prospects we can frame our studies in ways that endure over time. Table 3 summarizes the ideas presented in this chapter and prompts readers with questions that, when addressed, should help their work be framed in even more policy-relevant ways.

62

Bearing More Fruit? The Prospects of Conducting Policy-Relevant Research

T

HE PREVIOUS CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTED strategies that, when applied, should help higher education scholars frame their studies in policy-relevant ways. Applying these strategies can narrow the gap between research and policy, a goal that has been prioritized by ASHE presidents, our field’s top academic journals, and a growing chorus of scholars across the social sciences (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010; Prewitt et al., 2012; Terenzini, 1996). But even if we follow all of these strategies and asked research questions that explicitly align with policy questions, will our research still bear more fruit? Will the gap between research and policy start to narrow? This chapter explores these questions by drawing from research utilization literature and by providing examples of studies that seem well positioned to contribute to ongoing policy debates. To begin this discussion, we draw from Ness (2010a) to clarify three basic ways policymakers might “use” research. First, there is instrumental use, where research findings bear on specific policy decisions. When policymakers reference a particular study (or body of research), then they are “using” research to inform their policy decision. Traditional strategies for conducting research would prioritize this type of utilization, where a study is “policy relevant” if policymakers use it in the policymaking process. This is the type of research use Keller (1985) refers to when arguing that higher education is a tree without fruit. From the instrumental use perspective, the primary purpose of a tree is to produce fruit. This Public Policy and Higher Education

63

leaves little room for other functions of trees, such as their ability to provide shade, their environmental benefits, or their ability to provide lumber or fuel (Birnbaum, 2000). Second is the conceptual use of research, where studies are valued for their ability to enlighten and produce new knowledge regardless of whether it immediately bears on policy debates. From this perspective, policy relevance is not derived from a single study or one that answers an important question; rather, its usage comes through the “cumulative effect of a broad range of studies” (Ness, 2010a, p. 9). This represents some of the points we raised in our expanded view of policy-relevant research, where research serves as the intellectual backdrop to current (or future) debates (Weiss, 1978). With this type of research utilization, it is the accumulation of knowledge that matters most because it can “reduce the range of political disagreement” (Prewitt et al., 2012, p. 19). When evidence begins to stack up for (or against) a particular policy decision, then it becomes difficult for policymakers to ignore this evidence and to pursue a course of action that is not grounded in research. Yet, politics still matters, which brings us to our third type of research utilization. Instead of using research to find an optimal policy solution, political use would leverage research in such ways that advance a policymaker’s agenda (Ness, 2010a). In this case, the results of a study would be used to justify a particular policy solution over other alternatives. As jokingly noted by Lingenfelter (2011), politicians might “use data as a drunk uses a lamppost—for support, not illumination” (p. 45). But not all political uses should be viewed in such a negative light. It is possible that a politician has expertise in a particular research area and uses their political capital to bring this expertise to bear on policy debates. Such “research-minded” politicians could be helpful in closing the gap between research and policy (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010).

The Limitations of “Using” Academic Research in Policymaking Because of the various ways research might be used (or misused) in the policymaking process, some researchers may have little interest in engaging with 64

policy audiences. Others may outright reject the notion that all academic research should be actively seeking “relevance.” Referring to Pasteur’s quadrant, David Labaree (2008) argues that academic research is justified by its “contribution to theory, sometimes inspired by immediate social needs and sometimes not . . . ” (p. 422). Therefore, the pursuit of policy relevance may come at the expense of theory development. The pursuit of policy relevance could also narrow the range of questions one asks or make it difficult to determine what exactly counts as being relevant to public policymaking (Labaree, 2008). What is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to another, and the power and politics involved in determining what should (and should not) be on the policy agenda surely bear this out (Stone, 2012). Coming back to the primary argument that the field of higher education is a “tree without fruit” (Keller, 1985), we start to question what Keller means by “fruit” and the core purpose of academic research. The traditional perspective of policy relevancy assumes all research can and should be relevant to policy debates: its core purpose is to produce fruit for policy audiences to eat. But Labaree and Stone push us to consider alternative purposes that shed a different light on the value of research in policymaking. Just as Ness describes, research has many “uses” and it is difficult to determine just what it means to “bear fruit.” Further, Birnbaum (2000) pushes us to consider the vast array of other purposes academic research serves, and to consider that the pursuit of policy relevance might even miss more fundamental and important concerns related to theory development, understanding new problems, or explaining how people (and systems) change. In short, Birnbaum (2000) helps us consider the “other” values a tree produces beyond fruit: they produce shade, fuel, erosion protection, beauty, and so forth. Just as there are multiple ways to see the value of a tree, there should be various ways to see the value of academic research in the policymaking process. The value of academic research comes in many varieties, some designed for developing or improving theory, some for generating new knowledge about important social phenomena, and some for applying to policy or practice. There are multiple ways to make one’s work more germane to policy debates, and it is shortsighted to assume research is valued only for its instrumental use. Public Policy and Higher Education

65

Does the Use of Research Lead to Better Policymaking? Even when research is used in public policymaking, does it necessarily mean policy decisions will be “better” than if they were made in the absence of academic research? Policy decisions are routinely made without reference to scholarship, so why is the prospect of closing the gap between research and policy so desirable? To assume greater use of research will result in better policy is a normative assumption that we should be attentive to when we frame our research and consider the ways it may be relevant in the policymaking process. Just because research has been vetted through peer review does not necessarily mean it is the best possible assessment of a particular policy phenomenon. For example, academic researchers in K–12 education disagree on whether charter schools improve educational outcomes for students. Weimer (2009) notes that researchers sometimes seem more interested in winning heated policy debates than contributing to the body of knowledge on a particular education phenomenon. Considering that scientific inquiry and the use of knowledge are not separate from social and political forces, we should be careful to consider the limitations of conducting this type of research (Estabrooks et al., 2008). Policy issues rise and fall at a more rapid pace than does academic inquiry, so it may be fruitless to chase the ever-changing interests of policymakers. As Birnbaum (2000) argues, “even if all higher education research was explicitly policy relevant, it would be unlikely to have any greater influence on policy” (p. 124). Similarly, Stone (1989) warns that even the most policy-relevant study might not gain traction in policy debates. Just because academics have science, theory, and rigor on their side does not necessarily mean it will be used (instrumentally, conceptually, or even politically). This should not discourage researchers from conducing policy scholarship. On the contrary, we need to fully engage with these challenges and find ways to situate our work in more strategic ways that increase their chances of being used. How policymakers “use” our research is beyond our immediate control, but when we frame our work in ways that anticipate this later use, we are able to insert some degree of influence. This is why it is important to 66

include a section in our papers related to the policy implications, where we can engage in some discussion about how our findings might be used (or misused) in policymaking. Including this discussion may not only help policymakers interpret the implications of the study, but it can also be used to raise new questions that have yet been discussed or even reframe policy narratives. For these reasons, Weimer (2009) encourages researchers to be more “policy-analytic” in their studies. He argues that policy research in academic settings is fundamentally different from policy advocacy research conducted by think tanks, membership organizations, governmental agencies, and other nonacademic organizations. Academic research aims to address important problems in methodologically valid ways, while nonacademic policy research aims to assess the impacts of policy alternatives in light of policymakers’ values (Weimer, 2009). He argues that academic researchers could gain from being more policy analytic, particularly when it comes to understanding the complexities and idiosyncrasies of public policymaking. By acknowledging that policies have multiple (and often ambiguous) goals and that policymaking consists of trade-offs among competing priorities, academic researchers will be better able to anticipate how and why their research could appeal to various parts of the policymaking process. Our task is to surface these underlying points in our work.

Narrowing the Gap: Framing Studies in Their Appropriate Policy Context When our research is attentive to the issues discussed earlier, we can increase the likelihood that our research might contribute to current and future policy debates. Ness (2010a) explains that academic research might be used for instrumental, conceptual, or political purposes. Labaree (2008), Stone (2012), and Birnbaum (2000) encourage researchers to expand their thinking about what makes scholarship “policy relevant.” And Weimer (2009) ties their ideas together by encouraging researchers to be more “policy analytic” as a way to anticipate these nuances, ambiguities, and idiosyncrasies of public policymaking. Clearly, there is no formula guaranteeing policymakers will have an Public Policy and Higher Education

67

appetite for the “fruit” we produce in academia. But there are strategies researchers can use to increase the likelihood that their scholarship will be in demand. When conceptualizing a research study, it is important to situate the research question in its appropriate “stage” of the policymaking process. While the concept of policy stages has blurry lines, as described earlier, it provides a helpful heuristic for framing policy research. Let’s take a brief example to clarify what we mean. Assume a student asks the following research question: What are the political reasons why states adopted merit-based financial aid programs? This question fits nicely in the “policy adoption” stage of the policymaking process because it is most interested in the antecedents leading to a policy change. It does not ask how the policy is designed or implemented, nor does it ask about the policy’s impacts. By situating this as a “policy adoption” study, the researcher can focus on the various policymaking theories related to policy adoption. A different research question will lead the researcher to frame their study around a different “stage” of the policymaking process and will lead the researcher to a different conceptual framework for guiding the study. Take a different question related to the same policy issue: How did the adoption of state merit aid affect college access? This is an evaluative question that seeks to understand the impact of a policy (state merit aid) on a certain outcome (college access). Accordingly, a researcher who situates this study around the “policy evaluation” stage of the policymaking process will make their study even more policy relevant. If one was more interested in understanding the formulation and design of a policy, then they may ask a different research question, such as: How do eligibility criteria for merit-based aid vary by state? These three example questions are policy relevant in their own ways. Our point is that any research question should be able to align with a particular “stage” of the policymaking process. Being intentional in the way we ask a research question will lead us to an appropriate “stage” of the policymaking process. If a researcher asked the third question (“how do eligibility criteria vary?”) but framed their study around “policy evaluation” or “policy adoption” literature, then they would reduce the likelihood of being relevant to policymaking. The question asks about the design (i.e., eligibility criteria) of 68

a policy, and does not ask how that policy impacts certain outcomes or why it was adopted in the first place. When research is misaligned from its appropriate policy context, it becomes difficult to articulate how the findings contribute to policymaking. Of course, there are many ways to be creative in designing research questions and situating them in policy context; however, there are some basic strategies researchers can adopt in order to narrow the gap between academic research and policy contexts. Next, we briefly highlight examples of how researchers have intentionally aligned their questions with policy stages.

Policy Adoption Studies Since states are “laboratories for democracy,” they often experiment with policy interventions that other states later adopt or modify to meet their states’ needs. For example, Doyle, McLendon, and Hearn (2010) examine the spread of state prepaid tuition and college savings plans. In 1986, Michigan adopted the nation’s first state prepaid tuition program where families could purchase tuition credits when their child was in elementary school. These credits could later purchase future tuition credits, allowing families to “lock in” to a known tuition rate. In 1989, Ohio modified this savings policy by introducing the nation’s first college savings account program, where families could set aside money today for future (tax exempt) educational expenses. Today, all but two states offer prepaid tuition plans or college savings accounts. This led the researchers to ask “what factors led states to adopt these innovations?” Clearly, this study was situated in the “policy adoption” literature and it drew on the idea that states experiment with policy ideas and promising ones spread to other states. The theory of policy innovation and diffusion posits that neighboring states and those that share similar policy environments learn from one another and often mimic each other’s policy strategies. For more discussion and examples of this framework, see McLendon (2003b) and Berry and Berry (2007). Higher education researchers often use event history analysis to examine the spread of various policies, such as the adoption of merit aid, performance accountability systems, data systems, and in-state tuition for undocumented students (Doyle, 2006; Hearn, McLendon, & Mokher, 2008; McLendon & Public Policy and Higher Education

69

Cohen-Vogel, 2008; McLendon, Heller, & Young, 2005; McLendon et al., 2006). Policy innovation and diffusion is not the only framework from which one can examine the adoption of policies, and event history analysis is not the only method to use. Kingdon’s multiple streams model is also helpful for understanding and explaining why states (or the federal government) adopt particular policy agendas. Researchers have used this framework to conduct qualitative research via comparative case studies of why states adopted meritbased aid programs (Ness, 2007, 2010b).

Policy Formulation/Design Studies Researchers interested in exploring policy formulation and design are often asking research questions related to policy implementation (Honig, 2006). These studies are less common than studies of policy origins and impacts, though policy implementation research holds promise for higher education researchers (Kohoutek, 2013). Research on policy formulation and design explores the means by which policymakers go about achieving various policy goals. Accordingly, this research falls within the “formulation” and “implementation” stages of the policymaking process. This line of research can help policymakers determine whether a policy’s success (or failure) is due to the way in which the policy is designed, how it was implemented, or whether there could be tighter connections between theory and practice (Argyris & Sch¨on, 1978; McDonnell & Elmore, 1987). To study policy implementation, researchers often examine how policies translate into action and whether certain “instruments” are more preferable than others when addressing a policy problem (Howlett, 2005). For example, in federal student aid policy, there has been a decades-long debate about how best to subsidize postsecondary education. Some advocates argue that loans should be used as the primary mechanism for financing college, while others say grants are the best method. For example, in 1955, Milton Friedman proposed that the federal government should finance higher education by tying college costs to students’ future earnings, where students would repay a certain share of their future income in exchange for an education (Friedman, 1955). Friedman’s income-contingent loan (ICL) proposal was not immediately part of the federal government’s financial aid policy 70

“toolbox,” but in 1993, the Clinton Administration adopted a new ICL policy that drew from Friedman’s proposed financing strategy (Brody, 1994). There are several ways policymakers could “fix” the problems embedded within the student loan system, but the 1993 reform chose the ICL model as the instrument for achieving that policy goal. These policy alternatives and underlying logical (and philosophical) rationale for choosing one instrument over another are what the policy formulation and design literature is often interested in exploring. In addition to the federal loan example, a growing body of research on state performance funding policies has drawn from the formulation and design literature, where researchers are seeking to understand why states choose certain instruments (e.g., performance metrics, incentives, information) for achieving state higher education goals (Dougherty, Jones, et al., 2013; Dougherty, Natow, et al., 2013; Dougherty & Reddy, 2013). Researchers can help policymakers identify promising alternatives for aligning policy designs with desired policy outcomes. It is impossible to decouple instruments from policy formulation and design, so researchers asking questions about the mechanics and implementation of policies may find it helpful to frame their work in this policy implementation literature (Howlett, 2005; McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; Van Vught, 1995).

Policy Evaluation Studies One of the most common ways to situate academic research within a policy debate is to examine the effectiveness of a particular policy intervention. The “evaluation” stage of the policymaking process seeks evidence for continuing, expanding, or discontinuing existing policy efforts, so research that can inform those debates is often in high demand. The “traditional” view of policy-relevant research suggests that a study that uses a strong research design, is timely, and discusses policy implications should be useful in the “evaluation” stage of the policymaking process. But Ness (2010a) helps us see how complicated this might be. Even the most well-designed study may fail to resonate with policy audiences if the results do not align with political or philosophical beliefs. As Stone (1989) summarizes, while it may help to have science on your side, “it will not guarantee that a causal story will become the guiding assumption of public policy” (p. 295). Nevertheless, growing a body Public Policy and Higher Education

71

of evidence around the effects of policy interventions may, over time, shape the way policymakers think of a particular policy issue. One reason for the growth in policy evaluation research is because of recent endorsements by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and Institute for Education Statistics (IES). These organizations have established standards for conducting policy evaluations in education research, where they urge researchers to employ quantitative studies that employ experimental or quasi-experimental research designs to answer policy questions (Schneider et al., 2007). Studies that employ statistical techniques such as randomized control trials, fixed effects, propensity score matching, instrumental variables, or regression discontinuity are in high demand by policymakers because they help answer causal questions. There is a growing number of studies in higher education that employ these research designs, where scholars have studied the causal impacts of financial aid on college enrollment decisions (Castleman & Long, 2013; Dynarski, 2002; Rubin, 2011; Scott-Clayton, 2011a, 2011b); remedial education on persistence (Howell, Kurlaender, & Grodsky, 2010; Long & Boatman, 2013); affirmative action bans on college access (Flores, 2010; Garces, 2013); performance funding on college completion (Hillman, Tandberg, & Gross, 2014; Tandberg & Hillman, 2014; Tandberg, Hillman, & Barakat, in press); and transfer on bachelor’s degree attainment (Long & Kurlaender, 2009). When framing a research question around the causal impacts of a particular policy, it is important that the research design addresses AERA’s and IES’s concerns about internal validity so researchers can make causal claims. While quantitative studies are the preferred (or, at least, the dominant) technique for answering causal questions, this should not rule out qualitative studies. Qualitative research allows scholars to examine how policies might affect people’s perceptions or whether policies disproportionately affect minoritized groups while benefiting those who are already privileged. Evaluative questions ask causal questions that are often difficult to answer in social sciences because there are many interrelated forces that may influence any given outcome. The challenge in policy evaluation research is to disentangle these issues and identify whether a particular policy is responsible for changing the way people or organizations behave. 72

Summary This chapter introduced examples of how researchers frame their work according to various stages of the policymaking process. It also highlighted some promising research designs and strategies for framing research questions to align with these stages. While we try not to be too prescriptive with the approach to “what counts” as policy-relevant research, we believe these framing strategies can help researchers situate their work in ways that increase the odds of being relevant to policy audiences. Finding a way to frame work in its appropriate stage of the policymaking process helps researchers communicate their study in ways that resonate with policy audiences. One important observation from this chapter is that policy audiences will have different appetites for different types of policy scholarship. Some audiences may have little interest in questions about how a policy came to be, or whether certain instruments are appropriate for fixing policy problems. Instead, policy audiences are interested in whether a particular policy is “working” so they may gravitate to the evaluation studies discussed earlier. In an era of austerity, policymakers are often more interested in whether a policy is efficient and effective, so they want to know which policies are making an impact on individual or organizational behaviors. Policy audiences have a higher demand for academic research that answers questions about the effectiveness of existing policies, and there is a bias toward quantitative studies that employ experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Considering this, researchers may believe that conceptual, historical, or nonempirical scholarship is in low demand by policymakers. But should we view policy scholarship as a zero-sum game, where a greater appetite for quantitative and evaluative research means there must be less appetite for qualitative and conceptual scholarship? The short answer is no. Policymakers and their staff have an appetite for any academic research that is squarely situated in a way that resonates with ongoing (or forthcoming) policy changes. This is especially true when considering the recent amount of Congressional turnover at the state and federal level (Goodman, 2012; Rosiak, 2012). As new elected officials enter public office, they often bring new staff members who do not have the institutional memory or knowledge base of higher education policy;

Public Policy and Higher Education

73

therefore, they may be hungry for any type of policy-relevant research, regardless of whether it focuses on the origins, implementation, and impacts of a particular policy. We should not treat policy relevance as an exclusive club to which only quantitative researchers belong; rather, higher education scholarship should have a wider and more inclusive reach in terms of what “counts” as policy scholarship. The field of higher education is in dire need for advancing our conceptual and theoretical understanding of policymaking, and we must look beyond simply “bearing fruit” to a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of what makes our work policy relevant. We hope some of the observations in this chapter and the framing elements from the previous chapter help qualitative and quantitative scholars frame their research in policy-relevant ways, regardless of what “stage” of the policymaking process they are studying.

74

Summary and Reflections

A

S A RESEARCH COMMUNITY, higher education scholars have ample opportunities to engage in policy-relevant scholarship. Our field’s top journals and professional associations urge us to engage in policy scholarship, where we link our work to today’s most pressing policy debates. Funding agencies support research that informs policymaking, and the quest is ongoing in our field’s pursuit for understanding the causes and consequences of deeply rooted educational problems. But connecting our work to policy audiences is sometimes easier said than done. The previous chapters discussed some of the challenges of engaging in this line of research, and they offered strategies for linking our research more intentionally with policy audiences. In this monograph, we offer strategies for framing research around important policy contexts (e.g., source of policy, level of governance, instrument types, policy goals) along with theories and research designs that hold promise for policy scholarship (e.g., multiple streams, policy diffusion, quasiexperimental design, comparative case studies). We acknowledge there are pockets of scholars and academic programs that train students in higher education policy, so the discussions outlined in this monograph may be redundant to these audiences. However, we suspect not all students and early-career scholars have been exposed to the ideas and concepts laid out in this monograph. Our goal was to introduce readers to some core concepts, strategies, and research designs that might help our field become more “policy analytic.” Whether researchers are interested in the state and federal policy issues outlined in the second chapter, or if they are drawn to exploring certain “stages” of the policymaking process outlined in the first chapter, we hope this Public Policy and Higher Education

75

monograph helps build our field’s capacity to expand the scope and variety of policy-relevant scholarship. The third chapter offered “framing elements” and questions to help researchers develop studies that are more explicitly policy relevant. And in the fourth chapter, we discussed some of the challenges and opportunities of engaging in policy scholarship. From these discussions, we can see there is no single “best” or “right” way to engage academic research with policymaking. In fact, there is no guarantee these strategies will make our work more appealing to policymakers. This is due in large part to the idiosyncratic nature of public policymaking, where research is needed immediately and not after long periods of peer review. We also cannot ignore the political dynamics of the policymaking process, where policymakers may not be interested in academic research that contradicts or undermines a particular policy agenda. As researchers, we have little (if any) control over the “demand” side of research and how policymakers use our work. This is why it is so important for academic researchers to design studies that anticipate these issues, but also to be clear about how the work might inform different stages of the policymaking process. Our goal in these chapters was not to start a conversation about policy-relevant research; rather, we set out to make it more pervasive across the field and to offer strategies for framing our collective work in more policy-relevant ways.

Trends in Policy Scholarship in Higher Education We began this monograph discussing George Keller’s (1985) critique of higher education scholarship as a “tree without fruit” and that we are becoming a “literature without an audience” because of the lack of policy relevance in our work. Since then, a chorus of ASHE presidents have pushed the field of higher education to become more policy relevant and engaged in research that influences public policymaking (Bensimon, 2007; Milem, 2011; Rhoades, 2006; Terenzini, 1996). These sentiments are shared (and reinforced) through the submission guidelines of our field’s top three academic journals: Journal of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, and the Review of Higher Education. Below are excerpts from the article submission criteria, where each 76

journal encourages researchers to connect their work to public policy (emphasis added): ∙ Review of Higher Education: “The most central aspect of The Review is the saliency of the subject matter to other scholars in the field as well as its usefulness to academic leaders and public policymakers.” ∙ Journal of Higher Education: Articles are selected in part by their “ . . . significance to JHE readers and relevance to the field, originality of approach, quality of theoretical/conceptual development, quality of data, appropriateness of methodology, quality of analysis, logic of conclusions, policy relevance.” ∙ Research in Higher Education: “The journal is open to studies using a wide range of methods, but has particular interest in studies that apply advanced quantitative research methods to issues in postsecondary education or address postsecondary education policy issues.” Given the salience of making academic research more policy relevant, we became curious to see how frequently our field’s top journals publish research that includes the term “policy” or its variations (e.g., “policies,” “policymaker,” or “policymaking”).3 Accordingly, we downloaded every article published in these journals from 2010 through 2013 (n = 346). This includes all volumes and issues for all four years (n = 73). We conducted a content analysis, where we searched for the term “policy” or its variations listed earlier. If an article mentioned “policy” in the reference list or the author’s biography, then it was not counted. Only terms that were written in the body of the article were counted in this exercise. Table 4 displays the results of what we found. In Table 4, we do not disaggregate results by journals; rather, we sum all articles across all journals. During these four years, 77 of the 346 published articles (22%) never mentioned “policy” and 114 (33%) mentioned the term only one or two times. Together, most (55%) articles published in these journals either never mention the term or do so only in passing. Many of the articles in the “1 to 2 mentions” category make vague references to policy, like “policymakers should be concerned about these findings” or “results are relevant to policy.” While these try to connect research with policy, they lack Public Policy and Higher Education

77

TABLE 4 Frequency of Mentioning the Term “Policy” in All Published Articles

Never mentioned 1 to 2 mentions 3 to 9 mentions 10 or more mentions Total

2010

2011

2012

2013

Total

Percent of Total

13 31 22 18 84

22 27 20 16 85

23 33 14 24 94

19 23 19 22 83

77 114 75 80 346

22 33 22 23 100

specific details about how, where, or why the study relates to policy. Considering the importance of situating academic research in its appropriate policy context, it is difficult for any article to mention “policy” only once or twice and be strongly situated in any policy context. The remaining 155 articles (45% of the total) mention “policy” three times or more. About one in four articles (23%) mention the term more than 10 times, which we believe provides authors ample opportunities to engage in policy discussions. There is a wide degree of variation within this final category, where some articles mention the term over 100 times, making the study unambiguously connected to policy contexts. Such studies not only introduce a research question that has policy implications, but their theoretical framework and framing of the study are grounded in policy-relevant ways much like we discussed in this monograph. Of course, frequencies and percentages give us only a narrow view into how often our field is situating its work in policy contexts. It is possible for an article to be highly policy relevant without actually using the term “policy,” though we suspect it would be difficult to do so. For example, an article that examined student learning might not mention “policy,” but policymakers may be very interested in understanding more about how students learn. While this study would be listed in the “never mentioned” category, it does not preclude it from being relevant to policymakers. Just as we explained in our “expanded” view of policy-relevant research, it is very possible that such a study could be in high demand. We are simply identifying the extent to which researchers are 78

proactively situating their research in ways that might improve their likelihood of being in demand by policy audiences. Table 4 offers a starting point for discussing whether our field is doing “enough” policy-relevant research. As discussed in the previous chapter, what makes a study “relevant” is highly subjective and can be difficult to anticipate given the changing landscape around any given research topic. What is “irrelevant” today may be highly relevant tomorrow, so a simple frequency count like that displayed in Table 4 by no way can evaluate the condition of “policy relevance” in our field. Instead, we offer it to show the extent to which current publications are mentioning the term so researchers who are interested in connecting their work with policy may do so more intentionally and strategically.

Can Higher Education Research Be More Policy Relevant? Several factors shape whether a study will be relevant in public policymaking, and there is no guarantee that even the most “policy-relevant” study will actually inform public policymaking. From this perspective, researchers might be disillusioned or feel defeated about engaging in policy scholarship. After all, if policymaking is driven by political, financial, or philosophical priorities, then what is the role of evidence and science in this process? Cynics might argue that academic research plays an insignificant role in public policymaking, or that it is only useful when it supports a particular policy agenda. While there may be some truth to this, we are more optimistic. We argue there are strategies researchers can use to frame their work in policy-relevant ways. Of course, doing so does not guarantee that a study will be useful in policymaking, but it should improve the chances of resonating with policy audiences. Further, when we engage in this type of research we also move our field forward by applying, critiquing, and developing theories of public policymaking in higher education. By introducing the “traditional” and “expanded” perspectives of public policymaking, and outlining some of the sources of higher education policy, researchers should have some guidance Public Policy and Higher Education

79

on “how” to frame their work in policy-relevant ways. We hope the strategies outlined in this monograph help build and expand the capacities of higher education researchers, and that it contributes to our collective understanding of policy scholarship. While we are optimistic about our field’s ability to engage in policy scholarship, there are significant barriers to overcome. In academia, there is intense pressure to publish research in peer-reviewed journals. To earn tenure, faculty members must publish in these outlets, and research that is not vetted through peer review holds less weight in the retention and promotion of faculty members. Accordingly, researchers may be discouraged from translating their research into other outlets beyond academic journals, such as policy briefs, newspapers, or social media. There is certainly value in this type of outreach, especially in applied fields like education, but these efforts are not always rewarded in the same way as peer-reviewed journal articles. Because of these incentives, researchers may have little interest in engaging their work with policy audiences or in disseminating their work beyond academic circles. We urge researchers to do both: conduct high-quality academic research and share these findings in broadly accessible ways. One of the challenges of writing only for an academic audience is that the publication process is very slow. It takes several months, and even years, to conduct a study. Then it takes several more months to go through the peer review process, and even longer to eventually be printed in the journal. Between the time a study is completed and the time it is finished, a year or two may have already passed. During this waiting period, researchers could be reaching out to think tanks, advocacy groups, legislative staff members, and other policy audiences to discuss how their study is relevant to a particular policy agenda. They might write a policy brief, post a blog entry, write in a trade newsletter, reach out to a journalist, or hold a discussion forum to share their findings. Each of these activities is a way to engage more directly with the policy process, and they are only means to an end (and not an end of themselves). These activities are necessary components of sustaining a research agenda that interacts with policy communities. Even if researchers do not actively engage with these activities, there are ways they can make research more relevant 80

to policy audiences. By simply discussing the specific policy that is most relevant to the study’s research questions, or by identifying which level of government would be most interested in a study’s results, researchers can improve upon the current state of policy scholarship in our field. Too often, studies stop short of engaging with policy, where vague references to “policy” prevent readers from seeing precisely how or where these results fit into the policymaking process. There are many ways our research can engage with public policymaking, and the onus is on researchers to be more explicit and active in the way we connect our scholarship with policymaking.

Final Reflections Critics are quick to point their finger and blame higher education scholarship for being a barren field of research: a literature without an audience and a tree that bears no fruit. These long-held critiques do not seem to be going away any time soon, and they strike a chord with graduate students, faculty, and other members of our higher education community. While we do not disagree that higher education scholarship can be more policy-oriented, our field could benefit from more guidance on “how to” engage with policy scholarship. We wrote this monograph because we are unsatisfied with critiques that are unaccompanied by advice. It is fair to make critiques about the conditions of higher education scholarship, but it is unproductive to offer them without also offering solutions. This monograph tries to outline some solutions. This monograph offers conceptual frameworks that can be useful tools for situating research around policy contexts. It discusses various sources of higher education policy to help researchers identify specific policy issues for their study, and to identify which level of government has statutory authority over this particular issue. By being explicit about these items, researchers will become more intentional and strategic in the way they frame their research. Without attention to these basic features, we will continue to have vague discussions of policy with statements such as, “these results are relevant to policymakers” or “this study has policy implications.” We encourage researchers to be more explicit about these basic features by answering in their studies: What specific policy is relevant to this study? What level of Public Policy and Higher Education

81

government oversees this policy? What “stage” of the policymaking process does this study most likely inform? Additionally, we outlined promising research strategies and exemplar studies for exploring the origins, design and formulation, and impacts of higher education policies. There is a wide range of possibilities for engaging in policy scholarship, so we hope this monograph inspires researchers to explore how their research integrates with public policymaking. We introduced “traditional” and “expanded” perspectives to consider when engaging in policy scholarship, and we explored ways academic research might (and might not) be useful in the policymaking process. Public policymaking operates at different rhythms than academic research, so we hope our “framing elements” can help these two worlds come more in sync with one another. Higher education is facing significant problems related to access, quality, and affordability, while policymakers are calling on colleges to be more accountable for their performance. States and the federal government invest billions of dollars each year in higher education, so it is no surprise that policymakers at each level of government are concerned about the future of higher education. If we are not more strategic and intentional about “how” our scholarship interacts with public policy, then we can expect to continue hearing critiques about how our field is a literature without an audience or one that bears no fruit. To the extent that our scholarly community can connect its research with emerging policy debates, we increase the likelihood that future policy solutions will be evidence based and informed by the most recent and rigorous research in our field.

82

Notes 1. We thank Erik Ness for his thoughtful discussion of “supply and demand” of policy scholarship. For a helpful review of the literature and theories of research utilization, see Ness (2010a). 2. Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php#axzz1Zk4EqR9p. Authors’ calculations. 3. When we use the term “policy” in this discussion, we are also referring to its variants “policies,” “policymaker,” and “policymaking” interchangeably.

Public Policy and Higher Education

83

References Adams, J. S. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of organizational and industrial psychology (pp. 1175–1199). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Alt, J. E., & Lowry, R. C. (1994). Divided government, fiscal institutions, and budget deficits: Evidence from the states. The American Political Science Review, 88(4), 811–828. American Educational Research Association. (2013). AERA et al. bring science to bear in major affirmative action case. Washington, DC: Author. Ancheta, A. (2013). Brief of the American Educational Research Association et al. as amici curiae in support of respondents. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Anderson, J. E. (2011). Public policymaking: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Argyris, C., & Sch¨on, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Avery, C., & Turner, S. (2012). Student loans: Do college students borrow too much or not enough? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 165–192. Bailey, S. K. (1975). Education interest groups in the nation’s capital. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Bardach, E. (2011). Practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Baum, L. (2012). American courts: Process and policy (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441–469. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (2007). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Beyle, T. (2004). The governors. In V. Gray & R. R. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (8th ed., pp. 194–231). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

84

Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558. Birnbaum, R. (2000). Policy scholars are from Venus; policy makers are from Mars. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 119–132. Bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, T. J. (2010). Evidence-based policymaking: Insights from policy-minded researchers and research-minded policymakers. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Bohan, C., & Edwards, J. (2014, April 9). Republican Rubio offers bill on new education financing vehicles. Washington, DC: Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014 /04/09/us-usa-congress-rubio-education-idUSBREA380BJ20140409 Brody, E. (1994). Paying back your country through income-contingent student loans. San Diego Law Review, 31, 449–518. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Castleman, B. L., & Long, B. T. (2013). Looking beyond enrollment: The causal effect of needbased grants on college access, persistence, and graduation (No. 19306). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Christakis, M. N. (2009). Gubernatorial authority and influence on public higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 33(1), 95–117. Cook, C. E. (1998). Lobbying for higher education: How colleges and universities influence federal policy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Delaney, J. A., & Doyle, W. R. (2011). State spending on higher education: Testing the balance wheel over time. Journal of Education Finance, 36(4), 343–368. DesJardins, S. L. (2002). Understanding and using efficiency and equity criteria in the study of higher education policy. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 17, pp. 173–219). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0245-5_4 Dill, D. D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10(3–4), 167–185. Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S., Lahr, H., Natow, R., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2013). Envisioning performance funding impacts: The espoused theories of action for state higher education performance funding in three states (Working Paper No. 63). New York, NY: Community College Research Center. Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., Bork, R. H., Jones, S. M., & Vega, B. E. (2013). Accounting for higher education accountability: Political origins of state performance funding for higher education. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–50. Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., & Vega, B. E. (2012). Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the United States often do not persist. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1–42. Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the mechanisms? What are the impacts? ASHE Higher Education Report, 39(2), 1–134. Dowd, A. C., & Coury, T. (2006). The effect of loans on the persistence and attainment of community college students. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 33–62. doi:10.1007 /s11162-005-8151-8 Doyle, W. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 259–285.

Public Policy and Higher Education

85

Doyle, W. R., McLendon, M. K., & Hearn, J. C. (2010). The adoption of prepaid tuition and savings plans in the American states: An event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 51(7), 659–686. Dunn, D. D. (2003). Accountability, democratic theory, and higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 60–79. Dynarski, S. (2002). The behavioral and distributional implications of aid for college. American Economic Review, 92(2), 279–285. Dynarski, S., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2013). Financial aid policy: Lessons from research. The Future of Children, 23(1), 67–91. Estabrooks, C. A., Derksen, L., Winther, C., Lavis, J. N., Scott, S. D., Wallin, L., & ProfettoMcGrath, J. (2008). The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004. Implementation Science, 3(49), 1–22. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 11-345 U.S. (2013). Flores, S. M. (2010). The first state Dream Act: In-state resident tuition and immigration in Texas. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(4), 435–455. doi:10.3102 /0162373710380741 Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest (pp. 123–144). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Furner, M. O. (2011). Advocacy and objectivity: A crisis in the professionalization of American political science, 1865–1905. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Garces, L. M. (2013). Understanding the impact of affirmative action bans in different graduate fields of study. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 251–284. Gladieux, L. E., King, J. E., & Corrigan, M. E. (2005). The federal government and higher education. In P. Altbach, P. Gumport, & R. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 163–97). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gladieux, L. E., & Wolanin, T. R. (1976). Congress and the colleges: The national politics of higher education. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Glenny, L. A. (1959). Autonomy of public colleges: The challenge of coordination. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Goodman, J. (2012, October 18). States brace for huge legislative turnover. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline /2012/10/18/states-brace-for-huge-legislative-turnover Gormley, W. T. (2011). From science to policy in early childhood education. Science, 333(6045), 978–982. Gross, J. P., Cekic, O., Hossler, D., & Hillman, N. (2009). What matters in student loan default: A review of the research literature. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 39(1), 19–29. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. Hearn, J. C., & Griswold, C. P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 161–190. Hearn, J. C., McLendon, M. K., & Mokher, C. G. (2008). Accounting for student success: An empirical analysis of the origins and spread of state student unit-record systems. Research in Higher Education, 49(8), 665–683.

86

Heller, D. E. (2011). The financial aid picture: Realism, surrealism, or cubism? In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 26, pp. 125– 160). Springer: Netherlands. Henig, J. R. (2008). Spin cycle: How research gets used in policy debates—The case of charter schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Hillman, N. W. (2014). Cohort default rates: Predicting the probability of federal sanctions. Educational Policy. doi:10.1177/0895904813510772 Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Gross, J. (2014). Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions? Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 826–857. Hillman, N. W., Weichman, T., Gross, J., & Berry, M. (2013). A primer on income-related student loan repayment in the United States. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education. Retrieved from http://www.wiscape.wisc.edu/wiscape /publications/policy-briefs/pb016 Honig, M. I. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (Vol. 63). Albany: State University of New York Press. Hovey, H. A. (1999). State spending for higher education in the next decade: The battle to sustain current support. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Howell, J. S., Kurlaender, M., & Grodsky, E. (2010). Postsecondary preparation and remediation: Examining the effect of the early assessment program at California State University. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(4), 726–748. Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Policy tools, policy mixes, and policyimplementation styles. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 31–50). Montreal, Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Jackson, B. A., & Reynolds, J. R. (2013). The price of opportunity: Race, student loan debt, and college achievement. Sociological Inquiry, 83(3), 335–368. doi:10.1111/soin.12012 Jackson, M. (2009). Responsibility versus accountability in the Friedrich–Finer debate. Journal of Management History, 15(1), 66–77. doi:10.1108/17511340910921790 Keller, G. (1985). Trees without fruit: The problem with research about higher education. Change, 17(1), 7–10. Kingdon, J. W. (2010). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Longman. Kohoutek, J. (2013). Three decades of implementation research in higher education: Limitations and prospects of theory development. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(1), 56–79. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00531.x Labaree, D. F. (2008). Comments on Bulterman-Bos: The dysfunctional pursuit of relevance in education research. Educational Researcher, 37(7), 421–423. doi:10.3102 /0013189X08325557 Lauen, D. L., & Tyson, K. (2009). Perspectives from the disciplines: Sociological contributions to education policy research and debates. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 71–82). New York, NY: Routledge. Lingenfelter, P. E. (2011). Evidence and impact: How scholarship can improve policy and practice. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(3), 44–49. Lingenfelter, P. E. (2012). State policy leadership for higher education: A brief summary of the origins and continuing evolution of a profession. State Higher Education Executive

Public Policy and Higher Education

87

Officers, 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/STATE %20POLICY%20LEADERSHIP%20FOR%20HIGHER%20EDUCATION 0.pdf Lingenfelter, P. E., Novak, R., & Legon, R. (2008). Excellence at scale—What is required of public leadership and governance in higher education? Charlottesville, VA: AGB. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Long, B. T., & Boatman, A. (2013). The role of remedial and developmental courses in access and persistence. In L. Perna & A. Jones (Eds.), The state of college access and completion (pp. 77–95). New York, NY: Routledge. Long, B. T., & Kurlaender, M. (2009). Do community colleges provide a viable pathway to a baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 30–53. doi:10.3102/0162373708327756 Long, B. T., & Riley, E. (2007). Financial aid: A broken bridge to college access? Harvard Educational Review, 77(1), 39–63. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. McGuinness, A. C. (2003). Models of postsecondary education and governance in the states. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. McLendon, M. K. (2003a). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 18, pp. 57–143). London, UK: Kluwer. McLendon, M. K. (2003b). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17(1), 165–191. McLendon, M. K., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2008). Understanding education policy change in the American states: Lessons from political science. In B. Cooper, J. Cibulka, & L. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 30–51). New York, NY: Routledge. McLendon, M. K., Deaton, R., & Hearn, J. C. (2007). The enactment of reforms in state governance of higher education: Testing the political instability hypothesis. Journal of Higher Education, 78(6), 645–675. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1–24. McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Mokher, C. G. (2009). Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of political factors in state higher education funding. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 686–713. McLendon, M. K., Heller, D. E., & Young, S. P. (2005). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363–400. McLendon, M. K., & Ness, E. C. (2003). The politics of state higher education governance reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 66–88. Milem, J. F. (2011). Considering our legacy: Doing work that really matters. The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 319–333. Moos, M., & Rourke, F. E. (1959). The campus and the state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Nakamura, R. T. (1987). The textbook policy process and implementation research. Review of Policy Research, 7(1), 142–154.

88

Negotiated Rulemaking Act. (1990). Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. Code of federal regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR Ness, E. C. (2007). Merit aid and the politics of education. New York, NY: Routledge. Ness, E. C. (2010a). The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 1–49). London, UK: Springer. Ness, E. C. (2010b). The politics of determining merit aid eligibility criteria: An analysis of the policy process. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 33–60. Ness, E. C., & Tandberg, D. A. (2013). The determinants of state spending on higher education: How capital project funding differs from general fund appropriations. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(3), 329–362. Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Meier, K. J. (2003). Politics, structure, and public policy: The case of higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 80–97. Nutley, S., & Webb, J. (2000). Evidence and the policy process. In H. Davies, S. Nutley, & P. Smith (Eds.), What works: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services (pp. 13–41). Portland, OR: The Policy Press. Parsons, M. D. (1997). Power and politics: Federal higher education policymaking in the 1990s. Albany: State University of New York Press. Prewitt, K., Schwandt, T., & Straf, M. (2012). Using science as evidence in public policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Rhoades, G. (2006). The higher education we choose: A question of balance. The Review of Higher Education, 29(3), 381–404. doi:10.1353/rhe.2006.0015 Rosiak, L. (2012, June 6). Congressional staffers, public shortchanged by high turnover, low pay. The Washingtion Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news /2012/jun/6/congressional-staffers-public-shortchanged-by-high/ Rubin, R. B. (2011). The Pell and the poor: A regression-discontinuity analysis of on-time college enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 52(7), 675–692. Rubio, M. (2014, April 9). Rubio, Petri legislation would give students access to innovative college financing option. Retrieved from http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/4 /rubio-petri-legislation-would-give-students-access-to-innovative-college-financing-option Rutherford, A., & Rabovsky, T. (2014). Evaluating impacts of performance funding policies on student outcomes in higher education. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655(1), 185–208. Sabatier, P. A. (2007). The need for better theories. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 3–17). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Sanford, T., & Hunter, J. M. (2011). Impact of performance-funding on retention and graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33), 1–30. Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Estimating causal effects: Using experimental and observational designs. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Schuck, P. (2004). Foundations in administrative law (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Foundations Press. Scott-Clayton, J. (2011a). On money and motivation: A quasi-experimental analysis of financial incentives for college achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 614–646.

Public Policy and Higher Education

89

Scott-Clayton, J. (2011b). The causal effect of federal work-study participation: Quasiexperimental evidence from West Virginia. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 506–527. Shin, J. C. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S. Higher Education, 60(1), 47–68. Shonkoff, J. P., & Bales, S. N. (2011). Science does not speak for itself: Translating child development research for the public and its policymakers. Child Development, 82(1), 17–32. Squire, P. (2000). Uncontested seats in state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(1), 131–146. Squire, P., & Hamm, K. (2005). 101 chambers: Congress, state legislatures, and the future of legislative studies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300. Stone, D. A. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Sykes, G., Schneider, B. L., Plank, D. N., & Ford, T. G. (2009). Handbook of education policy research. New York, NY: Routledge. Tandberg, D. A. (2010a). Interest groups and governmental institutions: The politics of state funding of public higher education. Educational Policy, 24(5), 735–778. Tandberg, D. A. (2010b). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 51(5), 416–450. Tandberg, D. A. (2013). The conditioning role of state higher education governance structures. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 506–543. Tandberg, D. A., & Griffith, C. (2013). State support of higher education: Data, measures, findings and directions for future research. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 28, pp. 613–685). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Tandberg, D. A., & Hillman, N. (2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance, 39(1), 222–243. Tandberg, D. A., Hillman, N., & Barakat, M. (in press). State higher education performance funding for community colleges: Diverse effects and policy implications. Teacher’s College Record, 116(12). Tandberg, D. A., & Ness, E. C. (2011). State capital expenditures for higher education: ‘Where the real politics happens.’ Journal of Education Finance, 36(4), 394–423. Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Presidential address: Rediscovering roots: Public policy and higher education research. The Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 5–13. U.S. Department of Education. (2014a). VAWA negotiated rulemaking committee 2013. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2012/vawa -negotiators2014.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2014b). Session two materials. Retrieved from http://www2 .ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2012/vawa.html Van Vught, F. A. (1995). Policy models and policy instruments in higher education. The effects of governmental policy-making on the innovative behaviour of higher education institutions. IHS Political Science Series 26 [Policy Paper]. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu /32444/1/1264672129 pw 26.pdf

90

Weimer, D. (2009). Making education research more policy-analytic. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 93–100). New York, NY: Routledge. Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (2005). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Weiss, C. H. (1978). Improving the linkage between social research and public policy. In L. Lynn (Ed.), Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection (pp. 23–81). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Wilson, J. Q. (1978). Social science and public policy: A personal note. In L. Lynn (Ed.), Knowledge and policy: The uncertain connection (pp. 82–92). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Wolanin, T. R. (2003). The federal role in higher education. In R. Hendrickson (Ed.), The NEA 2003 almanac of higher education (pp. 39–51). Washington, DC: National Education Association. Woods, N. D. (2013). Regulatory democracy reconsidered: the policy impact of public participation requirements. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. doi:10.1093 /jopart/mut042

Public Policy and Higher Education

91

Name Index A Adams, J. S., 31 Alt, J. E., 28 Ancheta, A., 57 Anderson, J. E., 6, 9 Argyris, C., 70

B Bailey, S. K., 33 Bales, S. N., 19 Barakat, M., 72 Bardach, E., 17, 19 Baum, L., 42, 56 Baumgartner, F. R., 13 Bensimon, E. M., 76 Berry, F. S., 12, 69 Berry, M., 59 Berry, W. D., 12, 69 Beyle, T., 23, 24 Birnbaum, R., 3, 17, 57, 64, 65, 66, 67 Boatman, A., 72 Bogenschneider, K., 1, 63, 64 Bohan, C., 59 Bork, R. H., 50, 71 Brody, E., 71 Bryman, A., 19

C Carnoy, M., 49, 72 Castleman, B. L., 72

92

Cekic, O., 59 Christakis, M. N., 25 Cohen-Vogel, L., 70 Cook, C. E., 33, 34, 35 Corbett, T. J., 1, 63, 64 Corrigan, M. E., 33, 35 Coury, T., 59

D Deaton, R., 25, 32 Delaney, J. A., 27 Derksen, L., 66 DesJardins, S. L., 15, 49 Dill, D. D., 49 Dougherty, K. J., 50, 71 Dowd, A. C., 59 Doyle, W. R., 27, 32, 50, 69 Dunn, D. D., 14 Dynarski, S., 59, 72

E Edwards, J., 59 Elmore, R. F., 15, 70, 71 Estabrooks, C. A., 66

F Flores, S. M., 72 Ford, T. G., 49 Friedman, M., 70 Furner, M. O., 1

G Garces, L. M., 50, 72 Gladieux, L. E., 33, 35 Glenny, L. A., 29 Goodman, J., 73 Gormley, W. T., 19 Griffith, C., 27 Griswold, C. P., 32 Grodsky, E., 72 Gross, J. P., 59, 72, 59 Guston, D. H., 31

H Hamm, K., 28 Hearn, J. C., 25, 32, 69 Heller, D. E., 7, 9, 70 Henig, J. R., 3 Hillman, N. W., 56, 59, 72 Honig, M. I., 70 Hossler, D., 59 Hovey, H. A., 27 Howell, J. S., 72 Howlett, M., 14, 15, 70, 71 Hunter, J. M., 18

J Jackson, B. A., 59 Jackson, M., 14 Jones, B. D., 13 Jones, S. M., 50, 71

K Keller, G., 1, 5, 63, 65, 76 Kilpatrick, J., 49, 72 King, J. E., 33, 35 Kingdon, J. W., 11, 12, 13 Kohoutek, J., 70 Kurlaender, M., 50, 72

L Labaree, D. F., 3, 65, 67 Lahr, H., 50, 71 Lauen, D. L., 45 Lavis, J. N., 66 Legon, R., 24, 29 Lingenfelter, P. E., 24, 29, 64

Public Policy and Higher Education

Lipsky, M., 14 Long, B. T., 50, 59, 72 Lowry, R. C., 28

M McDonnell, L. M., 15, 70, 71 McGuinness, A. C., 31 McLendon, M. K., 25, 29, 32, 69 Meier, K. J., 31, 32 Milem, J. F., 76 Mokher, C. G., 69 Moos, M., 24

N Nakamura, R. T., 10 Natow, R., 50, 71 Ness, E. C., 1, 3, 12, 25, 32, 50, 51, 63, 64, 67, 70, 71 Nicholson-Crotty, J., 31, 32 Novak, R., 24, 29 Nutley, S., 17

P Parsons, M. D., 34, 35 Pheatt, L., 50, 71 Plank, D. N., 49 Prewitt, K., 2, 17, 63 Profetto-McGrath, J., 66

R Rabovsky, T., 18 Reddy, V., 50, 71 Reynolds, J. R., 59 Rhoades, G., 76 Riley, E., 59 Rosiak, L., 73 Rourke, F. E., 24 Rubin, R. B., 50, 72 Rubio, M., 59 Rutherford, A., 18

S Sabatier, P. A., 9 Sanford, T., 18 Schmidt, W. H., 49, 72 Schneider, B. L., 49, 72

93

Schuck, P., 38 Schwandt, T., 2, 17, 63 Sch¨on, D. A., 70 Scott, S. D., 66 Scott-Clayton, J., 59, 72 Shavelson, R. J., 49, 72 Shin, J. C., 18 Shonkoff, J. P., 19 Squire, P., 28 Stone, D. A., 10, 11, 65, 66, 67, 71 Straf, M., 2, 17, 63 Sykes, G., 49

T Tandberg, D. A., 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 72 Terenzini, P. T., 63, 76 Tyson, K., 45

94

V Van Vught, F. A., 15, 71 Vega, B. E., 50, 71 Vining, A. R., 45

W Wallin, L., 66 Webb, J., 17 Weichman, T., 59 Weimer, D. L., 45, 66, 67, 3 Weiss, C. H., 19, 64 Wilson, J. Q., 12, 58 Winther, C., 66 Wolanin, T. R., 33, 35

Y Young, S. P., 70

Subject Index A

F

ACE. See American Council on Education (ACE) AEI. See American Enterprise Institute (AEI) AERA. See American Educational Research Association (AERA) American Council on Education (ACE), 8 American Educational Research Association (AERA), 56 American Enterprise Institute (AEI), 59 ASHE. See Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), 1

FARM Bill. See Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARM) Bill Federal administrative agencies, 37–40 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management (FARM) Bill, 34 Federal policy actors, in higher education, 33–42; Congressional committees, 41–42; federal administrative agencies, 37–40; judiciary, 42; legislative branch of federal government, 40–42; overview, 33–35; president and executive offices, 36–37 Federal Register, 38 Fisher vs. University of Texas, 42, 56

B

Governors, role in higher education policy, 23–25 Grutter vs. Bollinger, 42 Gubernatorial powers, 24

Boundary-spanning organizations, 31–32

D

G

Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, 34 DREAM Act. See Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act

H

E

I

Evaluation, definition of, 15

Income-contingent loan (ICL) policy, 70

Public Policy and Higher Education

Higher Education Act (HEA), 34–35 Higher education policy, 21–43; federal policy actors in, 33–42; sources of, 21–22; state policy actors in, 22–33

95

M Middle Income Student Assistance Act (1978), 7

N National Research Council (NRC), 1 NRC. See National Research Council (NRC)

P Policy adoption, 13, 69–70 Policy evaluation, 14–16, 71–72 Policy formulation, 12–13, 70–71 Policy instruments, 14; of higher education policymaking, 14–15 Policymaking process, 9–16; agenda setting, 10–12; evaluation, 14–16; implementation, 13–14; policy adoption, 13; policy formulation, 12–13; stages of, 10 Policy-relevant research, 4, 43–63; conceptual use of, 64; context of, 67–72; dissemination of results, 54–56; expanded view of, 18–20; for improving policymaking, 66–67; instrumental use of, 63; limitations of, 64–65; overview, 44–48; policy implications, 52–54; political use of, 64; problem identification, 48–49; research design, 49–52; traditional views of, 16–18;

96

trends of, 76–79; utilization of results, 56–60 Public policy, 6–9; authorization and, 9; goals of, 6–7; response to competing demands, 8–9; timeliness of, 7–8

S SHEEO. See State Higher Education Executive Officer (SHEEO) State Higher Education Executive Officer (SHEEO), 29–30 State higher education governance structures, 30–33; boundary-spanning role of, 31–32; typology of, 31 State legislatures, role in higher education policymaking, 25–28; appropriations for higher education, 26–27; attributes of, 28; lawmaking, 26; oversight of government activities, 27–28 State policy actors, in higher education, 22–33; governors, 23–25; overview, 22–23; State Higher Education Executive Officer, 29–30; state higher education governance structures, 30–33; state legislatures, 25–28

V VAWA. See Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 39

About the Authors Nicholas W. Hillman is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of WisconsinMadison. His state policy research examines the effectiveness of state financial aid programs and the impacts of market-based policy reforms. His federal research focuses on student loan debt, default, and repayment reform. Through his research, Dr. Hillman seeks to understand how federal and state policies affect college access and equity. He teaches courses on the politics of higher education, higher education finance, and quantitative research methods. He earned his MPA and PhD from Indiana University, where he was also a McNair Scholar. Prior to joining the faculty, Dr. Hillman worked as a policy analyst for AASCU and SHEEO. David A. Tandberg is an associate professor of higher education and an associate director of the Center for Postsecondary Success at Florida State University. His teaching and research interests center on state higher education policy and politics. Dr. Tandberg is particularly interested in the political antecedents of state higher education policy and finance decisions and broader issues involving state higher education finance, policy, governance, and economics. Dr. Tandberg is also interested in policy evaluation and, in particular, evaluating state policies meant to increase access and success in higher education. Previously, Dr. Tandberg served as a special assistant to the Secretary of Education in the Pennsylvania Department of Education, focused on postsecondary policy development and implementation.

Public Policy and Higher Education

97

Brian A. Sponsler is director of the Postsecondary and Workforce Development Institute at the Education Commission of the States (ECS). In his role, Brian manages the institute’s policy research portfolio and maintains relationships with organizational funding partners, higher education policy researchers, and public policymakers. His research interests include college access for disenfranchised student populations, research utilization, and jurisdictional impediments to college-going and policy-adoption theory. Prior to joining ECS, Brian was the vice president for research and policy at NASPA, the leading professional association for the field of student affairs. Additionally, he served as associate director for research at the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). Brian holds a BA from the University of Puget Sound, an MA from Seattle University, and a doctorate in higher education administration from The George Washington University.

98

About the ASHE Higher Education Report Series Since 1983, the ASHE (formerly ASHE-ERIC) Higher Education Report Series has been providing researchers, scholars, and practitioners with timely and substantive information on the critical issues facing higher education. Each monograph presents a definitive analysis of a higher education problem or issue, based on a thorough synthesis of significant literature and institutional experiences. Topics range from planning to diversity and multiculturalism, to performance indicators, to curricular innovations. The mission of the Series is to link the best of higher education research and practice to inform decision making and policy. The reports connect conventional wisdom with research and are designed to help busy individuals keep up with the higher education literature. Authors are scholars and practitioners in the academic community. Each report includes an executive summary, review of the pertinent literature, descriptions of effective educational practices, and a summary of key issues to keep in mind to improve educational policies and practice. This series is one of the most peer reviewed in higher education. A National Advisory Board made up of ASHE members reviews proposals. A National Review Board of ASHE scholars and practitioners reviews completed manuscripts. Six monographs are published each year and they are approximately 144 pages in length. The reports are widely disseminated through Jossey-Bass and John Wiley & Sons, and they are available online to subscribing institutions through Wiley Online Library (http://wileyonlinelibrary.com).

Call for Proposals The ASHE Higher Education Report Series is actively looking for proposals. We encourage you to contact one of the editors, Dr. Kelly Ward ([email protected]) or Dr. Lisa Wolf-Wendel ([email protected]), with your ideas. Public Policy and Higher Education

A S H E H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N R E P O RT

ORDER FORM

SUBSCRIPTION AND SINGLE ISSUES

DISCOUNTED BACK ISSUES: Use this form to receive 20% off all back issues of ASHE Higher Education Report. All single issues priced at $23.20 (normally $29.00) TITLE

ISSUE NO.

ISBN

___________________________________________ ________________

___________________________

___________________________________________ ________________

___________________________

___________________________________________ ________________

___________________________

Call 1-800-835-6770 or see mailing instructions below. When calling, mention the promotional code JBNND to receive your discount. For a complete list of issues, please visit www.josseybass.com/go/aehe

SUBSCRIPTIONS: (1 YEAR, 6 ISSUES) New Order

Renewal Individual: $174 Individual: $174 Individual: $210

U.S. Canada/Mexico All Others

Institutional: $352 Institutional: $412 Institutional: $463

Call 1-800-835-6770 or see mailing and pricing instructions below. Online subscriptions are available at www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ORDER TOTALS: Issue / Subscription Amount: $ ____________ Shipping Amount: $ ____________ (for single issues only – subscription prices include shipping)

Total Amount: $ ____________

SHIPPING CHARGES:

First Item Each Add’l Item

$6.00 $2.00

(No sales tax for U.S. subscriptions. Canadian residents, add GST for subscription orders. Individual rate subscriptions must be paid by personal check or credit card. Individual rate subscriptions may not be resold as library copies.)

BILLING & SHIPPING INFORMATION: PAYMENT ENCLOSED: (U.S. check or money order only. All payments must be in U.S. dollars.) CREDIT CARD:

VISA

MC

AMEX

Card number _________________________________________Exp. Date_____________________ Card Holder Name_____________________________________Card Issue # ___________________ Signature ____________________________________________Day Phone ____________________ BILL ME: (U.S. institutional orders only. Purchase order required.) Purchase order # ____________________________________________________________________ Federal Tax ID 13559302 • GST 89102-8052

Name _______________________________________________________________________________ Address______________________________________________________________________________ Phone_____________________________________________ E-mail____________________________ Copy or detach page and send to: Order Form can also be faxed to:

John Wiley & Sons, One Montgomery Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94104-4594 888-481-2665

PROMO JBNND

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.