The Role of Information in the Policy Process: Implications for the Examination of Research Utilization in Higher Education Policy

Chapter

Abstract

Connecting research and policy persists as one of higher education’s most pressing challenges. Yet, the extent to which states rely on research evidence to craft policy remains under-studied. This chapter examines research utilization and public policy theory for their conceptual implications on how researchers might examine the role of information in the higher education policymaking process. The review of literature includes education-related studies, but also reviews classic studies drawn from political science, policy analysis, and evaluation. The inventory of how five theories of the policy process incorporate the research utilization literature identifies possible conceptual extensions of these frameworks and holds promise for increasing our understanding of how research influences policy. This chapter also discuss the influence of two types of intermediary organizations—state higher education agencies and regional compacts—on research utilization in the higher education policymaking process.

References

  1. Adams, J. S. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  2. Amara, N., Ouimet, M., & Landry, R. (2004). New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication, 26, 75–106.Google Scholar
  3. Apfel, J., & Worthley, J. A. (1979). Academic technical assistance: The university and state government. Public Administration Review, 39, 408–414.Google Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. (1985). The economics of agency. In J. Pratt & R. Zeckhauser (Eds.), Principals and agents: The structure of business (pp. 37–51). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Wilkerson, R. (2002). Studying policy dynamics. In F. R. Baumgartner & B. D. Jones (Eds.), Policy dynamics (pp. 29–46). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berdahl, R. O. (1971). Statewide coordination of higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  8. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–416.Google Scholar
  9. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1999). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In p. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 169–200). CO: Westview Press: Boulder.Google Scholar
  10. 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., pp. 223–260). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  11. Birnbaum, R. (2000). Policy scholars are from Venus; Policy makers are from Mars. Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 119–132.Google Scholar
  12. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.Google Scholar
  13. Braun, D. (1993). Who governs intermediary organizations? Principal-agent relations in research policy-making. Journal of Public Policy, 13(2), 135–162.Google Scholar
  14. Caplan, N. (1977). A minimal set of conditions necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in policy formulation at the national level. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 183–198). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  15. Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459–470.Google Scholar
  16. Caplan, N., Morrison, A., & Stambaugh, R. (1975). The use of social science knowledge in policy decisions at the national level: A report to respondents. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  17. Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on district’s use of evidence? In J. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds.), Educational improvement: What makes it happen and why? (pp. 67–86). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(March), 1–25.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen-Vogel, L., & Ingle, K. (2007). When neighbours matter most: Innovation, diffusion and state policy adoption in tertiary education. Journal of Education Policy, 22(3), 241–262.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen-Vogel, L., Ingle, K., Albee, A., & Spence., M. (2008). The “spread” of merit-based college aid: Politics, policy consortia and interstate competition. Educational Policy, 22(3), 339–362.Google Scholar
  21. Conrad, C. F. (1989). Meditations on the ideology of inquiry in higher education: Exposition, critique, and conjecture. Review of Higher Education, 12(3), 199–200.Google Scholar
  22. Cook, C. (1998). Lobbying for higher education: How colleges and universities influence federal policy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  23. deLeon, p. (1999). The stages approach to the policy process. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 19–32). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from who? A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343–357.Google Scholar
  25. Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
  26. Doyle, W. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 259–285.Google Scholar
  27. Dunn, W. N. (1980). The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 515–536.Google Scholar
  28. Dunn, W. N. (1983). Measuring knowledge use. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 5, 120–133.Google Scholar
  29. Dunn, D. D. (2003). Accountability, democratic theory, and higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 60–79.Google Scholar
  30. Dunn, W. N., Holzner, B., & Zaltman, G. (1985). Knowledge utilization. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlewaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 2831–2839). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  31. Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Eisenmann, L. (2009). Practicing what I teach: Does a career as a higher education professor inform my work as a dean? Review of Higher Education, 32(4), 515–535.Google Scholar
  33. Fusallari, L. D. (2008). Flying (partially) blind: School leaders use of research in decisionmaking. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 177–196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  34. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2008). What gets studied and why: Examining the incentives that drive education research. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 197–217). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (2000). Where do policy ideas come from? A study of Minnesota legislators and staffers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 573–597.Google Scholar
  36. Guston, D. H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science, 29(1), 87–112.Google Scholar
  37. Guston, D. H. (2000). Between politics and science: Credibility on the line. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.Google Scholar
  39. Guston, D., Jones, M., & Branscomb, L. M. (1997). The demand for and supply of technical information and analysis in state legislatures. Policy Studies Journal, 25(3), 451–469.Google Scholar
  40. Halperin, S. (1974). Politicians and educators: Two world views. Phi Delta Kappan, 56(3), 189–190.Google Scholar
  41. Hamann, E. T., & Lane, B. (2004). The roles of state departments of education as policy intermediaries: Two cases. Educational Policy, 18(3), 426–455.Google Scholar
  42. Harcelroad, F. F., & Eaton, J. S. (2005). The hidden hand: External constituencies and their impact. In P. G. Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twentieth century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 253–283). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hearn, J. C. (1993). The paradox of growth in federal aid for college students, 1965–1990. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. IX, pp. 94–153). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hearn, J. C. (1997). Research on higher education in a mass and diversified system: The case of the United States. In J. Sadlak & P. Altbach (Eds.), Higher education research at the turn of the century: Structures, issues, and trends (pp. 271–319). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  45. Hearn, J. C., & Corcoran, M. E. (1988). An exploration of factors behind the proliferation of the institutional research enterprise. Journal of Higher Education, 59(6), 634–651.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. Heller, D. E. (1997). Student price response in higher education: An update to Leslie and Brinkman. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 624–659.Google Scholar
  48. Heller, D. E., & Marin, P. (Eds.) (2002). Who should we help? The negative social consequences of merit scholarships. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.Google Scholar
  49. Henig, J. (2008a). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates: The case of Charter Schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  50. Henig, J. (2008b). The evolving relationship between researchers and public policy. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 41–62). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  51. Henig, J. (2009). Politicization of evidence: Lessons for an informed democracy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 137–160.Google Scholar
  52. Hess, F. M. (2008). When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  53. Hird, J. A. (2005). Policy analysis for what? The effectiveness of nonpartisan policy research organizations. Policy Studies Journal, 33(1), 83–105.Google Scholar
  54. Hird, J. A. (2006). Power, knowledge, and politics: Policy analysis in the states. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.Google Scholar
  56. Honig, M. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114, 627–664.Google Scholar
  57. Hood, p. (2002). Perspectives on knowledge utilization in education. San Francisco: WestEd.Google Scholar
  58. Ingle, K., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Hughes, R. (2007). The public policy process among Southeastern states: Elaborating theories of regional adoption and hold-out behavior. Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 607–628.Google Scholar
  59. James, T. E., & Jorgensen, P. D. (2009). Policy knowledge, policy formulation, and change: Revisiting a foundational question. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 141–162.Google Scholar
  60. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.Google Scholar
  62. Johnsrud, L. K. (2008). Faculty work: Making our research matter—more. Review of Higher Education, 31(4), 489–504.Google Scholar
  63. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention: How government prioritizes problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Jones, B. D., Baumgartner, F. R., & True, J. L. (1998). Policy punctuations in U.S. budget authority, 1947–1995. The Journal of Politics, 60(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  65. Keller, G. (1985). Trees without fruit. Change, 17(1), 7–10.Google Scholar
  66. Kezar, A. (2000). Higher education research at the millennium: Still trees without fruit? Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 443–468.Google Scholar
  67. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  68. Kirp, D. L. (1992). The end of policy analysis: With apologies to Daniel (“The end of ideology”) Bell and Francis (“The end of history”) Fukiyama. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11, 693–696.Google Scholar
  69. Kivisto, J. (2005). The government-higher education institution relationship: Theoretical considerations from the perspective of agency theory. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  70. Knott, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1980). If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 537–578.Google Scholar
  71. Krehbeil, K. (1991). Information and legislative organization. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  72. Lane, J. E. (2007). The spider web of oversight: An analysis of external oversight of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 78(6), 615–644.Google Scholar
  73. Lane, J. E., & Kivisto, J. A. (2008). Interests, information, and incentives in higher education: Principal-agent theory and its potential application to the study of higher education governance. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVIII, pp. 141–179). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  74. Larsen, J. K. (1980). Knowledge utilization: What is it? Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 421–442.Google Scholar
  75. Leslie, D. W., & Beckham, J. (1986). Special issue. Review of Higher Education, 10(2).Google Scholar
  76. Leslie, D. W., & Berdahl, R. O. (2008). The politics of restructuring higher education in Virginia: A case study. Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 308–328.Google Scholar
  77. Lester, J. P. (1993). The utilization of policy analysis by state agency officials. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 14(3), 267–290.Google Scholar
  78. Lindblom, C., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Lindbolm, C. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.Google Scholar
  80. Lindbolm, C. (1968). The policymaking process. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  81. Lowry, R. C. (2001). Governmental structure, trustee selection, and public university prices and spending. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 845–861.Google Scholar
  82. Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  83. McCubbins, M. D. (1985). The legislative design of regulatory structure. American Journal of Political Science, 29(4), 721–748.Google Scholar
  84. McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165–179.Google Scholar
  85. McGuinness, A. C. (1997). State postsecondary education structures handbook. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar
  86. McLendon, M. K. (2003a). Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 74(5), 479–515.Google Scholar
  87. McLendon, M. K. (2003b). State higher education governance reform: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVIII, pp. 57–143). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  88. McLendon, M. K. (2003c). The politics of higher education: Toward an expanded research agenda. Educational Policy, 17(1), 165–192.Google Scholar
  89. McLendon, M. K., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2008). Understanding education policy change in the American states: Lessons from political science. In B. S. Cooper, J. Cibulka, & L. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 30–51). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. 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.Google Scholar
  91. 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.Google Scholar
  92. McLendon, M. K., Heller, D. E., & Young, S. P. (2005). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 363–400.Google Scholar
  93. Millet, J. D. (1975). State coordinating boards and statewide governing boards: State government coordination versus institutional independence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 5(Spring), 61–70.Google Scholar
  94. Mills, M. R. (2007). Stories of politics and policy: Florida’s higher education governance reorganization. Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 162–187.Google Scholar
  95. Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770.Google Scholar
  96. Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434.Google Scholar
  98. Mitchell, D. E. (1981a). Shaping legislative decisions: Education policy and the social sciences. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  99. Mitchell, D. E. (1981b). Social science utilization in state legislatures. Review of Research in Education, 9, 257–308.Google Scholar
  100. Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777.Google Scholar
  101. Moe, T. M. (1985). Control and feedback in economic regulation: The case of the NLRB. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 1094–1116.Google Scholar
  102. Moe, T. M. (2005). Power and political institutions. Perspectives on politics, 3(2), 215–234.Google Scholar
  103. Monear, D. A. (2008). Explaining stability and upheaval in state-level higher education governance: A multiple-case study analysis using advocacy coalition theory and punctuated equilibrium theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  104. Mooney, C. Z. (1991). Information sources in state legislative decision making. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16, 445–455.Google Scholar
  105. Mooney, C. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 103–124.Google Scholar
  106. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE). (2008). Measuring up. San Jose, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  107. Neilson, S. (2001). IDRC supported research and its influence on public policy: Knowledge utilization and public policy process: A literature review. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  108. Ness, E. C. (2008). Merit aid and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  109. Ness, E. C., & Mistretta, M. A. 2009. Policy adoption in North Carolina and Tennessee: A comparative case study of lottery beneficiary programs. Review of Higher Education, 32(4), 489–514.Google Scholar
  110. Ness, E. C., & Mistretta, M. A. (in press). Merit aid in North Carolina: A case study of a “non-event.” Educational Policy, Available OnlineFirst, doi:10.1177/0895904809339165.Google Scholar
  111. Tandberg, D. A., Ness, E. C., & McLendon, M. K. (2009). Interest groups and state higher education: A conceptual understanding and future research direction. San Diego, CA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association.Google Scholar
  112. Nettles, M. T. (1995). The emerging national policy agenda on higher education assessment: A wake-up call. Review of Higher Education, 18(3), 293–313.Google Scholar
  113. Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Meier, K. (2003). Politics, structure, and public policy: The case of higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 80–97.Google Scholar
  114. Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  115. Oh, C. H. (1997). Explaining the impact of policy information on policy-making. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 10, 25–55.Google Scholar
  116. Ozawa, C. P. (1991). Recasting science: Consensual procedures in public policy making. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  117. Parsons, M. D. (1997). Power and politics: Federal higher education policymaking in the 1990s. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  118. Parsons, M. D. (2004). Lobbying in higher education: Theory and practice. In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales (pp. 215–230). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Perna, L. W., & Titus, M. A. (2004). Understanding differences in the choice of college attended: The role of state public policies. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 507–525.Google Scholar
  120. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, D. J. (Eds.) (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  121. Reimers, F., & McGinn, N. (1997). Informed dialogue: Using research to shape education policy around the world. Connecticut and London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  122. Rich, A. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Rich, R. F. (1977). Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats: Knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 199–211). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  124. Rich, R. F. (1981). Social science information and public policy making: The interaction between bureaucratic politics and the use of survey data. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  125. Rich, R. F. (1991). Knowledge creation, diffusion, and utilization: Perspectives of the founding editor of Knowledge. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 12, 319–337.Google Scholar
  126. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  127. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  128. Ross, S. A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal’s problem. American Economic Review, 63(2), 134–139.Google Scholar
  129. Sabatier, P. A. (1978). The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 396–417.Google Scholar
  130. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.Google Scholar
  131. Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (1999a). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  132. Sabatier, P. A. (1999b). The need for better theories. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3–17). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  133. Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  134. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy changes and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168.Google Scholar
  135. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  136. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  137. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In p. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189–220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  138. Sederburg, W. A. (1989). A legislator looks at academe. Change, 21(1), 31–38.Google Scholar
  139. Shakespeare, C. (2008). Uncovering information’s role in the state higher education policy-making process. Educational Policy, 22(6), 875–899.Google Scholar
  140. Shattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  141. Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 226–244.Google Scholar
  142. Simon, H. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  143. Simon, H. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  144. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  145. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  146. Snow, C. P. (1961). Science and government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  147. Squire, P. (2000). Uncontested seats in state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 131–146.Google Scholar
  148. St. John, E. P., Musoba, G. D., Simmons, A., Chung, C. G., Schmidt, J., & Peng, C.-Y. J. (2004). Meeting the access challenge: An examination of Indiana’s twenty-first century scholars program. Research in Higher Education, 45(8), 829–871.Google Scholar
  149. Tandberg, D. A. (in press). Interest groups and governmental institutions: The politics of state funding of public higher education. Educational Policy, Available OnlineFirst, doi: 10.1177/0895904809339163.Google Scholar
  150. Terenzini, p. (1996). Rediscovering roots: Public policy and higher education research. Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  151. True, J. L. (2000). Avalanches and incrementalism. American Review of Public Administration, 30, 3–18.Google Scholar
  152. Tseng, V. (2007). Studying the use of the research evidence in policy and practice. New York: William T. Grant Foundation.Google Scholar
  153. Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.Google Scholar
  154. Webber, D. J. (1987). Legislators use of policy information. American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 612–631.Google Scholar
  155. Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 615–635.Google Scholar
  156. Weiner, S. S. (1986). Shipyards in the desert. Review of Higher Education, 10(2), 159–164.Google Scholar
  157. Weiss, C. H. (1977). Using social research in public policymaking. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  158. Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431.Google Scholar
  159. Weiss, C. H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 381–404.Google Scholar
  160. Weiss, C. H. (1983). Ideology, interests, and information: The basis of policy positions. In D. Callahan & B. Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, social sciences, and policy analysis (pp. 213–245). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  161. Weiss, C. H. (1991). Policy research as advocacy: Pro and con. Knowledge & Policy, 4, 37–56.Google Scholar
  162. Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1977). The challenge of social research to decisionmaking. In C. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policymaking (pp. 213–233). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  163. Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1980). Social science and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  164. Weiss, C. H., Murphy-Graham, E., & Birkeland, S. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 12–29.Google Scholar
  165. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  166. Wolanin, T. R. (1976). “Don’t trouble me with the facts”: Congress, information, and policymaking for postsecondary education. In S. K. Gove & F. W. Wirt (Eds.), Political science and school politics: The princes and pundits (pp. 91–110). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  167. Wong, K. K. (2008). Considering the politics in the research and policymaking nexus. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 219–237). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  168. Wong, K. K., & Shen, F. X. (2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16(1), 161–192.Google Scholar
  169. Workman, S., Jones, B. D., & Jochim, A. E. (2009). Information processing and policy dynamics. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 75–92.Google Scholar
  170. Wright, J. R. (2003). Interest groups and congress. New York: Longman Classics in Political Science, Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  171. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Higher EducationUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations