Advocates or Honest Information Brokers? Examining the Higher Education Public Policy Agenda-Setting Processes of Intermediary Organizations

Autor/inn/en	Orphan, Cecilia M.; Laderman, Sophia; Gildersleeve, Ryan Evely
Titel	Advocates or Honest Information Brokers? Examining the Higher Education Public Policy Agenda-Setting Processes of Intermediary Organizations
Quelle	In: Review of Higher Education, 44 (2021) 3, S.325-355 (31 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0162-5748
Schlagwörter	Case Studies; Agenda Setting; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Higher Education; Organizations (Groups); Philanthropic Foundations; Advocacy; Group Membership; Information Utilization; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation; Administrator Attitudes; Access to Education; Privacy; Student Financial Aid; Equal Education; Diversity; Accreditation (Institutions); Academic Achievement; Governance; Expertise; Advisory Committees; Story Telling; Figurative Language; Financial Support; Nongovernmental Organizations; Institutional Mission; Policy Formation + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Case study; Fallstudie; Case Study; Politics of education; Bildungspolitik; Politikfeldanalyse; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Philanthropismus; Sozialanwaltschaft; Gruppenzugehörigkeit; Informationsnutzung; Bildungsrecht; Schulgesetz; Bundesrecht; Education; Access; Bildung; Zugang; Bildungszugang; Privatsphäre; Finanzielle Beihilfe; Studienfinanzierung; Studienförderung; Accreditation; Institution; Institutions; Akkreditierung; Staatliche Anerkennung; Institut; Schulleistung; Educational policy; Financing; Steuerung; Erziehung; Finanzierung; Expert appraisal; Beratungsstelle; Finanzielle Förderung; Politische Betätigung
Abstract	This multiple-site case study of 24 intermediary organizations (IOs) engaged in postsecondary public policy examined how they identify policy issues and move issues, problems, and solutions onto the higher education policy agenda. Specifically, this study used agenda-setting theory to examine how IOs construct higher education policy issues, problems, and solutions, and the processes they employ to set the higher education policy agenda. IO information production and use were of particular interest to this study. The findings demonstrate that IOs engage in multiple agenda-setting processes including coalition building, hosting convenings, storytelling, publishing policy agendas, and leveraging focusing events. Some IOs position themselves as honest information brokers without obvious political agendas; others deliberately advocate for policy change. Regardless of how they positioned themselves, all IOs examined in this study used information strategically--either information created by the IOs themselves or secondary data and information from other sources--to identify issues and construct problems and solutions. Previous to this study, research had explored the outcomes of IO agenda-setting activities including how they successfully promote interstate policy diffusion and influence the policy formation process. This study significantly uses agenda-setting theory to expose the processes IOs use to set the postsecondary policy agenda. The findings also surfaced an echo-chamber effect among IOs coalescing around a few issues (specifically, college access and affordability) at the exclusion of other issues that warrant policymaker attention such as Indigenous students which was prioritized by just one of the 24 IOs studied. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Johns Hopkins University Press. 2715 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218. Tel: 800-548-1784; Tel: 410-516-6987; Fax: 410-516-6968; e-mail: jlorder@jhupress.jhu.edu; Web site: http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/subscribe.html
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01