Abstract
An empirical literature recently has arisen attempting to explain policy outcomes for higher education in the 50 states. The studies have examined the policy influences of legislatures, bureaucracies, governors, and other institutional political actors, but few research efforts have sought to account—conceptually or empirically—for the policy impacts of organized interest groups in the arena of state postsecondary education. This chapter helps to remedy the gap. We outline a broad agenda for research that aims to deepen conceptual understanding of the relationship between interest groups and state level higher education policy and to chart future research directions. We organize the chapter around three foci: (1) a review of extant research on state-level interest group activity in the higher education arena; (2) development of a conceptual framework grounded in the literatures of political science and higher education on interest groups and public policymaking with which to guide future inquiry; and, (3) a discussion of possible future research directions in the area, including a number of rarely-used data sources that could enrich the future study of interest groups and higher education in the U.S. states.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
McGuinness’s 2011 version of his categorization of state higher education governance structures can be found here: http://www.ecs.org/html/educationIssues/Governance/GovPSDB_intro.asp
- 2.
See, for example, the online lobbyist registration databases for California http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/; Florida http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Lobbyist/index.cfm?Tab=lobbyist; New York http://www.nyintegrity.org/public/lobby_data.html; Pennsylvania http://www.oit.state.pa.us/LobbyistRegister/Site/Default.asp; Texas http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/guides/LOBBY%20guide.htm#REGISTERING; Tennessee http://tennessee.gov/tref/lobbyists/lobbyists_faq.htm; and Wisconsin http://ethics.state.wi.us/lobbyingregistrationreports/LobbyingOverview.htm.
- 3.
See also Zumeta (1998), who proposes a similar relationship between statewide boards and policy outcomes, if for different reasons.
- 4.
The models derive from McGuinness’ (1986, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997) four-fold typology, and include consolidated governing boards, regulatory coordinating boards, advisory coordinating boards, and planning agencies. As with the challenges associated with the Hrebenar-Thomas measure, the data provided by McGuinness are updated only periodically, although the gaps between updates in the McGuiness typology are shorter than those found in the Hrebenar and Thomas surveys.
References
Abelson, D. E. (2009). Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes (2nd ed.). Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Anderson, G., & Donochik, L. M. (2014). Privatizing Schooling and Policy Making: The American Legislative Exchange Council and New Political and Discursive Strategies of Education Governance. Educational Policy 0895904814528794, first published on May 16, 2014 as doi:10.1177/0895904814528794
Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2006). State higher education spending and the tax revolt. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 618–644.
Au, W., & Ferrare, J. J. (2014). Sponsors of policy: A network analysis of wealthy elites, their affiliated philanthropies, and charter school reform in Washington State. Teachers College Record, 116(11). (ID Number 17387). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org.
Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). The two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947–952.
Ball, S. (2009). Privatizing education, privatizing education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the “competition state”. Journal of Education Policy, 24, 83–99.
Bastedo, M. N. (2005). The making of an activist governing board. The Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 551–570.
Biancani, S., & McFarland, D. A. (2013). Social networks behavior in higher education. In M. B. Paulsen & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXVIII, pp. 151–215). New York: Springer.
Blackwell, E. A., & Cistone, P. J. (1999). Power and influence in higher education: The case of Florida. Higher Education Policy, 12(2), 111–122.
Boehmke, F. J. (2005). The indirect effect of direct legislation: How institutions shape interest group systems. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
Brace, P. (1988). The political economy of collective action: The case of the American states. Polity, 20, 648–664.
Browne, W. (1985). Variations in the behavior and style of state lobbyists and interest groups. Journal of Politics, 47, 450–468.
Burstein, P. (1998). Interest organizations, political parties, and the study of democratic politics. In A. N. Costain & A. S. McFarland (Eds.), Social movements and American political institutions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Cibulka, J. G. (2001). The changing role of interest groups in education: Nationalization and the new politics of education productivity. Educational Policy, 15(1), 12–40.
Cook, C. E. (1998). Lobbying for higher education: How colleges and universities influence federal policy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Daly, A. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
DeBray, E., Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & Jabbar, H. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175–206.
deGive, M. L., & Olswang, S. (1999). Coalition building to create a branch campus system. Review of Higher Education, 22(3), 287–313.
Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S., Lahr, H., Natow, R., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2014). The Political Origins of Performance Funding 2.0 in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee: Theoretical Perspectives and Comparisons With Performance Funding 1.0. CCRC Working Paper (CCRC Working Paper No. 68).
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., Nienhusser, H. K., & Vega, B. E. (2010). Undocumented Immigrants and State Higher Education Policy: The Politics of In-State Tuition Eligibility in Texas and Arizona. Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 123–173.
Doyle, W. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 259–285.
Elazar, D. J. (1984). American federalism: A view from the states (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Ferrin, S. E. (2003). Characteristics of in-house lobbyist in American colleges and universities. Higher Education Policy, 16(1), 87–108.
Ferrin, S. E. (2005). Tasks and strategies of in-house lobbyists in American colleges and universities. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(2), 180–191.
Frost, S. H., Hearn, J. C., & Marine, G. M. (1997). State policy and the public research university: A case study of manifest and latent tensions. Journal of Higher Education, 68(4), 363–397.
Glenny, L. A. (1972). The anonymous leaders of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 43(1), 9–22.
Goodall, L. E. (Ed.). (1987). When colleges lobby states: The higher education/state government connection. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Gormley, R. (1996). Accountability battles in state administration. In C. Van Horn (Ed.), The state of the states (3rd ed., pp. 161–178). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1988). Interest group politics and economic growth in the U.S. states. American Political Science Review, 82(1), 109–131.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1993a). The diversity of state interest group systems. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 81–97.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1993b). Stability and change in state interest group systems: 1975 to 1990. State and Local Government Review, 25, 87–96.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (1996). The population ecology of interest representation: Lobbying communities in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (2001). The expression of density dependence in state communities of organized interests. American Politics Research, 29(4), 374–391.
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Meier, K. J. (1996). The politics of gay and lesbian rights: Expanding the scope of the conflict. Journal of Politics, 58(2), 332–349.
Hannah, S. B. (1996). The Higher Education Act of 1992: Skills, constraints and the politics of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), 498–527.
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.
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Henig, J. (2008). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates: The case of charter schools. New York: Russell Sage.
Hines, E. R. (1997). State leadership in higher education. In L. F. Goodchild, C. D. Lovell, E. R. Hines, & J. I. Gill (Eds.), Public policy and higher education (ASHE reader series, pp. 376–409). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
Hines, E. R. (1998). Higher education and state governments: Renewed partnership, cooperation, or competition? (ASHE-ERIC higher education report no. 5). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Hojnacki, M. (1997). Interest groups’ decisions to join alliances or work alone. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 61–87.
Hojnacki, M. (1998). Organized interests’ advocacy behavior in alliances. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 437–459.
Hrebenar, R. J., & Thomas, C. S. (1982). Interest group politics in America. Armonk, NY: ME Sharp.
Hrebenar, R. J., & Thomas, C. S. (1987). Interest group politics in the southern states. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
Hrebenar, R. J., & Thomas, C. S. (1990). Interest group politics in America (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: ME Sharp.
Hrebenar, R. J., & Thomas, C. S. (1997). Interest group politics in America (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: ME Sharp.
Hrebenar, R. J., & Thomas, C. S. (2007). Interest group politics in America (4th ed.). Armonk, NY: ME Sharp.
Jewell, M. E. (1982). Representation in state legislatures. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lacy, A. (2011). Rethinking state structures: Political and organizational change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Lane, J. E. (2007). The spider web of oversight: An analysis of external oversight of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(6), 615–644.
Lane, J. E. (2008). Assessing the effectiveness of legislative action on academic change: A case study of the North Dakota Higher Education Roundtable. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Jacksonville, FL.
Lederman, D. (2012, April 13). Foundations newfound advocacy. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/13/study-assesses-how-megafoundations-have-changed-role-higher-ed-philanthropy#sthash.46v7TqeF.dpbs
Lewis, D. C., Schneider, S. K., & Jacoby, W. G. (2013). Institutional characteristics and state policy priorities: The impact of legislatures and governors. Paper presented at the 2013 State Politics and Policy Conference, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Lowery, D., & Gray, V. (1993). The density of state interest group systems. Journal of Politics, 55(1), 191–206.
Lowery, D., Gray, V., Cluverius, J., & Harden, J. J. (2013). Explaining the anomalous growth of public sector lobbying in the American States, 1997–2007. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43(4), 580–599.
Lowry, R. C. (2001). Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 845–861.
Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and education policy. Teachers College Record (ID Number 16487). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
Malen, B. (2001). Generating interest in interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1), 168–186.
Mawhinney, H. B. (2001). Theoretical approaches to understanding interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1), 187–214.
McFarland, A. S. (1987). Interest groups and theories of power in America. British Journal of Political Science, 17, 129–147.
McGuinness, A. C. (1986). State postsecondary education structures handbook: 1986. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
McGuinness, A. C. (1988). State postsecondary education structures handbook: 1988. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
McGuinness, A. C. (1991). State postsecondary education structures handbook: 1991. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
McGuinness, A. C. (1994). State postsecondary education structures handbook: 1994. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
McGuinness, A. C. (1997). State postsecondary education structures handbook. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
McGuinness, A. C. (2005). The states and higher education. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century (2nd ed., pp. 198–225). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
McLendon, M. K. (2003a). Setting the agenda for state decentralization of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 1–37.
McLendon, M. K. (2003b). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVIII, pp. 57–144). London: Kluwer.
McLendon, M. K., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Wachen, J. (in press). Understanding education policymaking and policy change in the American states: Learning from contemporary policy theory. In B. Cooper, J. Cibulka, & L. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
McLendon, M. K., & Hearn, J. C. (2003). Introduction to the politics of higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 3–11.
McLendon, M. K., & Hearn, J. C. (2007). Incorporating political indicators into comparative-state research on postsecondary policy. In K. Shaw & D. E. Heller (Eds.), The challenges of comparative state-level higher education policy research (pp. 11–36). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & 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. Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 686–713.
McLendon, M. K., Mokher, C. G., & Doyle, W. (2009). Privileging public research universities: The political economy of state appropriations to higher education. Journal of Education Finance, 34(4), 372–401.
McLendon, M. K., Mokher, C. G., & Flores, S. M. (2011). Legislative agenda-setting for in-state resident tuition policies: Immigration, representation, and educational access. American Journal of Education, 117(4), 563–602.
McLendon, M. K., Tandberg, D. A., & Hillman, N. (2014). Financing college opportunity: An analysis of factors influencing state spending on student financial aid and campus appropriations from 1990 to 2012. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 655, 143–162.
Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. New York: Basic Books.
Morehouse, S. M. (1981). State politics, parties, and policy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Morphew, C. C., & Eckel, P. D. (Eds.). (2009). Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Murray, M. A. (1976). Defining the higher education lobby. Journal of Higher Education, 47(1), 79–92.
Nardi, P. M. (2003). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon/Pearson Education, Inc.
Ness, E. C. (2010a). The politics of determining Merit Aid Eligibility Criteria: An analysis of the policy process. Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 33–60.
Ness, E. C. (2010b). The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXV, pp. 1–49). New York: Springer.
Ness, E. C., & Gándara, D. (2014). Ideological think tanks in the states: An inventory of their prevalence, networks, and higher education policy activity. Educational Policy, 28(2), 258–280.
Ness, E. C., & Mistretta, M. A. (2009). Policy adoption in North Carolina and Tennessee: A comparative case study of lottery beneficiaries. Review of Higher Education, 32(4), 489–514.
Ness, E. C., & Tandberg, D. A. (2013). The Determinants of State Capital Expenditures for Higher Education: How capital project funding differs from general fund appropriations. 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.
Nownes, A. J., & Freeman, P. (1998). Interest group activity in the states. Journal of Politics, 60, 86–112.
Nownes, A. J., & Newmark, A. J. (2013). Interest groups in the states. In V. Gray & R. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American States (10th ed., pp. 105–131). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Nownes, A. J., Thomas, C., & Hrebenar, R. (2008). Interest groups in the states. In V. Gray & R. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American States (9th ed., pp. 98–126). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Olson, M., Jr. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Opfer, V. D., Young, T. Y., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Politics of interest: Interest groups and advocacy coalitions in American education. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 195–216). New York: Routledge.
Parry, M., Field, K., & Supiano, B. (2013, July 14). The Gates effect. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Gates-Effect/140323/
Parsons, M. D. (1997). Power and politics: Federal higher education policymaking in the 1990s. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Perna, L. W., & Finney, J. E. (2014). The attainment agenda: State policy leadership in higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pullman, J. (2013, February 11). Education Policies Led by Gates, Not States? Heartlander Magazine. Retrieved from http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/02/11/education-policies-led-gates-not-states
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenthal, A. (1993). The third house: Lobbyists and lobbying in the states. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Sabloff, P. L. (1997). Another reason why state legislatures will continue to restrict public university autonomy. Review of Higher Education, 20(2), 141–162.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1983). More of the same: Washington pressure group activity in a decade of change. Journal of Politics, 45, 353–373.
Schneider, S. K., & Jacoby, W. G. (2006). Citizen influences on state policy priorities: The interplay of public opinion and interest groups. In Public Opinion in State Politics (pp. 183–208). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Scola, N. (2012, April 14). Exposing ALEC: How conservative-backed state laws are all connected. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/exposing-alec-how-conservative-backed-state-laws-are-allconnected/255869/
Slaughter, S., Thomas, S., Johnson, D., & Barringer, S. (2014). Institutional conflict of interest: The role of interlocking directorates in the scientific relationships between universities and the corporate sector. Journal of Higher Education, 85(1), 1–35.
Song, M., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Who are the influentials? A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 7–48.
Tandberg, D. A. (2006). State-level higher education interest group alliances. Higher Education in Review, 3, 25–49.
Tandberg, D. A. (2007). Politics, budgetary tradeoffs, and state funding of public higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
Tandberg, D. A. (2008). The politics of state higher education funding. Higher Education in Review, 5, 1–36.
Tandberg, D. A. (2010a). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 15(5), 416–450.
Tandberg, D. A. (2010b). Interest groups and governmental institutions: The politics of state funding of public higher education. Educational Policy, 24(5), 735–778.
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., & Ness, E. C. (2011). State capital expenditures for higher education: ‘Where the real politics happens’. Journal of Education Finance, 36(4), 394–423.
Tankersley-Bankhead, E. A. (2009). Student lobbyists’ behavior and its perceived influence on state-level public higher education legislation: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.
Thomas, C. S., & Hrebenar, R. J. (1992). Changing patterns of interest group activity. In M. P. Petracca (Ed.), The politics of interest: Interest groups transformed (pp. 150–174). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Thomas, C., & Hrebenar, R. (1999). Interest groups in the states. In V. Gray & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American States: A comparative analysis (7th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Thomas, C., & Hrebenar, R. (2004). Interest groups in the states. In V. Gray & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Politics in the American States: A comparative analysis (8th ed., pp. 100–128). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Truman, D. B. (1951). The governmental process. New York: Knopf.
Wiggins, C. W., & Browne, W. P. (1982). Interest groups and public policy within a state legislative setting. Polity, 14, 548–558.
Wiggins, C. W., Hamm, K. E., & Bell, C. G. (1992). Interest group and party influence agents in the legislative process: A comparative state analysis. Journal of Politics, 54, 82–100.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zumeta, W. (1998). Public university accountability to the state in the late twentieth century: Time for a rethinking? Policy Studies Review, 15(4), 5–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Prospective Research Questions Related to Interest Groups and Higher Education in the States
Appendix: Prospective Research Questions Related to Interest Groups and Higher Education in the States
State Landscape of Interest Groups and How They Operate | Why do some institutions choose to employ a full-time lobbyist (e.g., director of governmental affairs) and others choose to contract with a lobbying firm or do both? What are the trade-offs? |
To what extent do higher education lobbying strategies vary by state? To what extent do they vary by sector or locus of control? | |
To what extent do the tactics, strategies, motivations, and methods of higher education lobbyists and interest groups differ from other lobbyists and interest groups? | |
How do the size and resource bases of higher education lobbies vary across states? | |
Factors Influencing the State Interest Group Landscape | What impact does the density and diversity of a state’s interest group environment have on the state’s higher education lobby? |
What factors influence a higher education interest group’s decision making in regard to lobbying strategy? | |
What is the relationship between a state’s interest density and diversity and various measures of the strength of the college and university lobby (e.g., the Thomas and Hrebenar’s scale)? | |
How has the relative size of the higher education lobby changed over time? Which characteristics of the higher education lobby (e.g., organizational attributes, reliance on “hired guns,” etc.) changed overtime? Why have these changes occurred? | |
Impacts of State Interest Groups on State Politics and Policy Outputs | What impact do interest groups, and specifically the higher education lobby, have on state level higher education policy? |
What, if anything, has resulted from changes in higher education’s influence? What difference has the lobby made in terms of state policy outcomes? How has the policy impact changed over time? | |
To what extent do state governance structures condition the impact of the higher education lobby? What structures most and least mediate the policy influence of the higher education lobby? | |
Does the impact of the higher education lobby vary depending on whether an institution employs a contract lobbyist, an in-house lobbyist, or both? |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ness, E.C., Tandberg, D.A., McLendon, M.K. (2015). Interest Groups and State Policy for Higher Education: New Conceptual Understandings and Future Research Directions. In: Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12834-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12835-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)