Abstract
Policy networks are often structured around affiliations between actors through shared beliefs and information. This means that researchers examining these networks need tools tailored to two-mode networks. In this chapter, we highlight three such tools that cut across quantitative and qualitative boundaries using data from the Policy Innovators in Education Network. Our case study builds from frameworks of discourse networks and idea brokerage. We begin by detailing our approach to qualitative coding of network members’ policy preferences and research-use behaviors. We then illustrate how exponential random graph models, brokerage chain analysis, and correspondence analysis can be used to predict and explore different facets of these two-mode networks. Our illustration concludes with a discussion of the insights and limitations that can emerge from these strategies.
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
Notes
- 1.
The codebook constructed by Galey and Ferrare (2016) and Reckhow et al. (2016) suggested several similar codes adaptable to our schema, particularly pertaining to teacher accountability. The present codebook is modeled after their structural framework, similarly featuring categories of policy proposals arranged within a hierarchy of overarching belief systems.
References
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). http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 17387.
Au, W., & Ferrare, J. J. (Eds.). (2015). Mapping corporate education reform: Power and policy networks in the neoliberal state. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315762401.
Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgnzt.
Brighouse, H., Ladd, H. F., Loeb, S., & Swift, A. (2018). Educational goods: Values, evidence, and decision-making. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226514208.001.0001.
Burt, R. S. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Brookings Institution Press.
Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What is the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In Research and practice: Towards a reconciliation (pp. 67–86). Harvard Education Press.
Coburn, C. E., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112, 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1086/505056.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Cranmer, S. J., & Desmarais, B. A. (2011). Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Political Analysis, 19(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq037.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813514132.
DeBray-Pelot, E. H., & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328524.
Faust, K. (2005). Using correspondence analysis for joint displays of affiliation networks. In P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 117–147). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811395.007.
Ferrare, J. J., Carter-Stone, L., & Galey-Horn, S. (2021). Ideological tensions in education policy networks: An analysis of the Policy Innovators in Education (PIE) network in the United States. Foro de Educacion, 19(1), 11–28.
Ferrare, J. J., & Reynolds, K. (2016). Has the elite foundation agenda spread beyond the gates? An organizational network analysis of non-major philanthropic giving in K12 education. American Journal of Education, 123(1), 137–169. https://doi.org/10.1086/688165.
Ferrare, J. J., & Setari, R. R. (2018). Converging on choice: The interstate flow of foundation dollars to charter school organizations. Educational Researcher, 47(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17736524.
Finnigan, K. S., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Mind the gap: Organizational learning and improvement in an underperforming urban system. Amerian Journal of Education, 119(1), 41–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/667700.
Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J., & Che, J. (2013). Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring, using, and diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 476–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325668.
Galey, S. (2015). Education politics and policy: Emerging institutions, interests, and ideas. Policy Studies Journal, 43(S1), S12–S39. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12100.
Galey, S., & Ferrare, J. J. (2016). Coordinating choice and alternatives: A policy network analysis of school choice and alternative certification expansion in state subsystems. Annual Meeting of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, Denver, CO.
Galey-Horn, S., Reckhow, S., Ferrare, J. J., & Jasny, L. (2020). Building consensus: Idea brokerage in teacher policy networks. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 872–905. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219872738.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014.
Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/270949.
Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011234.
Greenacre, M., & Blasius, J. (Eds.). (2006). Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods. Chapman & Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011319.
Hunter, D. R. (2007). Curved exponential family models for social networks. Social Networks, 29, 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2006.08.005.
Jasny, L. (2012). Baseline models for two-mode social network analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 40(3), 458–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2012.00461.x.
Kretchmar, K., Sondel, B., & Ferrare, J. J. (2014). Mapping the terrain: Teach for America, charter school reform, and corporate sponsorship. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 742–759. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.880812.
Leifeld, P. (2013). Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 169–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12007.
Manna, P., & Moffitt, S. (2014). New education advocacy organizations in the U.S. states: National snapshot and a case study of Advance Illinois. The Wallace Foundation.
Marsden, P. V. (1982). Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. In N. Lin & P. V. Marsden (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 201–218). Sage Publications.
McGuinn, P. (2012). Fight club: Are advocacy organizations changing the politics of education. Education next, 12, 25–31.
McShane, M. Q., & Hess, F. M. (2015). The politics of entrepreneurship and innovation. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 304–321). Routledge.
Mehta, J., & Teles, S. (2012). Jurisdictional politics: A new federal role in education. In F. M. Hess & A. P. Kelly (Eds.), Carrots, sticks, and the bully pulpit: Lessons from a half-century of federal efforts to improve America’s schools (pp. 197–216). Harvard Education Press.
Meyer, D., Hornik, K., & Feinerer, I. (2008). Text mining infrastructure in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(5), 1–54. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i05.
Moe, T. M. (2011). Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public schools. Brookings Institution Press.
Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In D. Guest & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 137–163). Altamira Press.
Obstfeld, D., Borgatti, S. P., & Davis, J. (2014). Brokerage as a process: Decoupling third party action from social network structure. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 40, 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2014)0000040007.
Policy Innovators in Education. (2019, May 3). http://www.pie-network.org/about/.
Reckhow, S. (2010). Disseminating and legitimating a new approach: The role of foundations. In K. E. Bulkley, J. R. Henig, & H. M. Levin (Eds.), Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 277–304). Harvard Education Press.
Reckhow, S. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199937738.001.0001.
Reckhow, S., Galey, S., & Ferrare, J. J. (2016). Bipartisanship and idea brokerage in education policy networks. In 9th Annual Political Networks Conference. Washington University. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2798935.
Reckhow, S., & Galey-Horn, S. (2017). Did research inform the national policy debate on teacher evaluation? Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14536607.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2006). Policy network analysis. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 423–445). Oxford University Press.
Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 189–222). Westview Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367274689-7.
Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328531.
Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136.
Scott, J. (2015). Foundations and the development of the U.S. charter school policy-planning network: Implications for democratic schooling and civil rights. Teachers College Record, 114(2), 131–147.
Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2013). Money and measures: Foundations as knowledge brokers. In D. Anagnostopoulos, S. A. Rutledge, & R. Jacobson (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education (pp. 75–92). Harvard Education Press.
Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327.
Snijders, T., Pattison, P. E., Robins, G. L., & Handcock, M. S. (2006). New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociological Methodology, 36(1), 99–153.
Supovitz, J., Daly, A. J., del Fresno, M., & Kolouch, C. (2017). #commoncore Project. Retrieved from www.hashtagcommoncore.com.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ferrare, J.J., Galey-Horn, S., Jasny, L., Carter-Stone, L. (2021). Measuring Issue Preferences, Idea Brokerage, and Research-Use in Policy Networks: A Case Study of the Policy Innovators in Education Network. In: Weber, M.S., Yanovitzky, I. (eds) Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the Public Policymaking Process. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78755-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78755-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78754-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78755-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)