“Research” Use in Federal Education Policy & What Academics can do to increase their involvement.

Paul Rubin, PhD
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy
University of Utah


As academics, we train to become experts in our field by reading, writing, and engaging with a topic for years. Nevertheless, many lament the limited inclusion of empirical research in the policy process and question why researchers themselves are not more involved in policymaking. Academics have even described empirical research’s use in policy as “trees without fruit” (Keller, 1985) or “shipyards in the desert” (Weiner, 1986), suggesting its minimal impact. A contributing factor to the division between researchers and policymakers has been framed as differences between “two communities,” where each side maintains distinct language, norms, and goals that ultimately impede effective cross-communication. Questions remain—are policymakers intentionally avoiding empirical research? And, more importantly, what can researchers do to make their work more policy relevant and policy applicable? After spending last year as an AERA/American Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional fellow, I would say the answers to these questions are “no” and “lots.”

     Let us first consider the context and timeline of the policy process. Politics and individual agendas are ever-present throughout policy development and implementation. Regardless of political party affiliation, geography, and other broad factors, a politician’s primary objective is to pass bills that align with their goals and the needs of their constituency. The use of research to inform these decisions becomes secondary and will only be considered when it aligns with their broader goal and agenda.

     Moreover, even if research was prioritized, there are limitations for policymakers to access and consider the extensive history of empirical work on a given topic. First, the timeline for decision-making is short and the staff member in charge of informing the elected official is likely overseeing several topics (each with pressing deadlines). For example, in many congressional offices, the staffer in charge of education policy is also responsible for health, labor, pensions, and possibly more depending on how their office is staffed and the committees their boss is involved. The utility of academic research is further stymied by academic jargon, the lengthy publication process, and the overall specificity of most academic studies, which limit their applicability to broader policy conversations. Of course, this assumes staff members can even read these journal articles through paywalls and other barriers to access.

     Staff members must turn to other parties that can translate and repackage empirical research into a more digestible form. Often these information sources are intermediary organizations—think tanks, advocacy groups, and research consortia—that are able to devote extensive time to translate academic research into a more policy applicable form. The utility and association with specific organizations for staff members are again based on the broader agenda and politics of their boss, but should not be dismissed by academics as a viable avenue to share their work. In fact, recent research has begun to untangle and highlight the critical role of these groups in influencing policy and dissemination of information (see Gándara, Rippner, & Ness, 2017; Orphan, Laderman, & Gildersleeve, 2018).

     To that end, turning to the second question—what academics can do to connect their work better to the policy world—it really starts with these intermediary organizations. Many groups solicit expertise from researchers to conduct projects and to distill their empirical work, or broader literature reviews, into one-page policy briefs. Academics should reach out to organizations that align with their own goals and agenda to see if opportunities exist to author blog posts, reports, or policy briefs (see Hillman & Weichman, 2016; Kelchen, 2017; Long, 2018).

     While organizations prominent in policy discussions might turn to established academics more often for such opportunities, newer researchers can still find platforms to establish themselves as policy-facing researchers (and potential resources for bigger-named intermediary organizations in the future). For example, news sources like Diverse Issues, Inside Higher Ed, and The Conversationprovide researchers an outlet to write in a less academic setting and for a less academic audience (see Garcia, 2018; Marsicano, 2017).

     Considering policymakers are concerned with their constituency and district/state, an additional resource is within an academic’s home institution in the government relations office. These individuals will have connections to policymakers and have an understanding of their priorities and concerns. By keeping the government relations office apprised of major projects and empirical work, academics may be better attuned to when they can be more effective in influencing policy discussions. Additionally, if there is major legislation on the docket—for example, the Higher Education Act—it may be worthwhile to make your government relations office aware of your willingness to serve as a contact for policymakers and see if any connections can be accomplished in that manner.

     Academics also need to consider how they are promoting themselves and their work. Academics cannot rely on academic journals as the primary mechanism for promoting their work. Keep in mind, the staff members that are shaping policy are very busy and are most often hearing about major topics and information sources via Twitter and other social media sites. Consequently, maintaining an online presence is important and being able to summarize research concisely (think one or two tweets) is critical.

     Academics need to make their work more accessible if they want to be more policy relevant. This includes considering an audience that might not be fellow academics, necessitating less jargon and a focus on findings and implications. One possible area to consider this is when writing manuscript abstracts. Providing adequate detail on the major findings and implications of a study in an abstract can provide readers an understanding of the contributions of a study without requiring access to the journal or full manuscript.

     Policymakers and intermediary organizations translating empirical research are also searching for actionable policy – viable mechanisms to move current policy forward. Therefore, academics should reconsider what constitutes “policy recommendations” in journal manuscripts. If the hope is for research findings to influence policy decisions, this section should not be a place to grandstand and discuss policy as though it is entirely theoretical (see Kelchen & Li, 2017).This is not to say that researchers should not also discuss the ideal policy outcome but the focus must be about actionable steps to reach that end.

     Notably, academics face additional obstacles when trying to bridge the two community divide. A key factor to consider is that tenure and promotion committees often do not favor these policy-oriented activities over the traditional responsibilities of research, teaching, and service. Academics need to consider this when deciding how best to devote their time but should also recognize that it is a double-edged sword – if you do not interact with the policy sector, the policy sector will likely not reach out to you. Policymakers already have their “experts” on a given topic, so the onus is ultimately on academics to prove their value as one of these sources and getting their work in the correct hands to influence policy.

References:

Gándara, D., Rippner, J.A., & Ness, E.C. (2017). Exploring the ‘how’ in policy diffusion: National intermediary organizations’ roles in facilitating the spread of performance-based funding policies in the states. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 701-725.

Garcia, N.M. (2018, September 10). An open letter from the “hot tamale” aka your Latina professor. Diverse Issues. Online at: https://diverseeducation.com/article/125140. 

Hillman, N., & Weichman, T. (2016). Education deserts: The continued significance of “place” in the twenty-first century. American Council on Education: Center for Policy Research and Strategy. Online at: https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Education-Deserts-The-Continued-Significance-of-Place-in-the-Twenty-First-Century.pdf.

Kelchen, R. (2017, September). Higher education accreditation and the federal government. Urban Institute. Online at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/93306/higher-education-accreditation-and-the-federal-government.pdf.

Kelchen, R., & Li, A.Y. (2017). Institutional accountability: A comparison of the predictors of student loan repayment and default rates. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 671(1), 202-223.

Keller, G. (1985). Trees without fruit: The problem with research about higher education. Change, 17(1), 7-10.

Long, B.T. (2018, May 25). The college completion landscape: Trends, challenges, and why it matters. American Enterprise Institute/Third Way. Online at: https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-college-completion-landscape-trends-challenges-and-why-it-matters.

Marsicano, C.R. (2017, July 13). Republican don’t hate higher education. InsideHigherEd. Online at:https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/07/13/republicans-view-individual-colleges-differently-they-do-higher-ed-general-essay.

Orphan, C.M., Laderman, S., & Gildersleeve, R.E. (2018). The Role of Intermediary Public Policy Organizations in Shaping the Policy Agenda for Higher Education: A Research Brief.2018 Public Policy Forum, Higher Education in the Era of the States: Elevating Equity and Advancing Public Policy.” Online at: http://morgridge.du.edu/wp-content/uploads/201806/Public-Policy-Research-Brief_FINAL.pdf.

Weiner, S.S. (1986). Shipyards in the desert. The Review of Higher Education, 10(2), 159-164. 

Investing in Equity: How do Performance-Based Funding Policies Impact Financial Resources at Minority Serving Institutions?

By: Nicholas Hillman and Daniel Corral

Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis

University of Wisconsin, Madison

                     

State legislatures have increasingly turned to performance-based funding (PBF) as a way to align financial incentives with educational goals. Each state designs its model differently and in line with its own unique goals, but all tend to prioritize outputs like: degrees awarded; credit hours completed; retention rates; and even job placement rates.

Given what we know about racial inequalities in these outputs, we wanted to see how public Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) fared under these new funding models*. We started by taking a close look at Tennessee, where the state allocates nearly all of its funds through a PBF formula. Predominantly white institutions have garnered the lion’s share of new money from the funding model, but the state’s sole public Historically Black university (Tennessee State University) has received nearly no new money despite seeing steady enrollment growth.

We wanted to see if this pattern held across other PBF states and we found, on average, it did.

It is difficult to disentangle the policy effect from other confounding factors, so we utilized a statistical technique that is both accepted by the field and is designed to help answer our questions. Our main finding was that overall state funding levels did not change significantly after adopting PBF policies. That is, PBF states neither invest nor divest at higher rates than other states. But when it comes to MSIs in PBF states, we see a different story. Our results show MSIs lost about $750 per FTE student, on average, when compared to MSIs in states that never adopted the policy. We interpret these results as exploratory and in need of closer examination, particularly in the states that invest the most in this funding model.

We also interpret our results as something to keep a close eye on for MSIs and other broad-access institutions serving racial and ethnic minoritized students. Using performance metrics that do not account for their unique missions and limited resources, these models might do little to reverse inequalities. For policymakers interested in mitigating inequalities and promoting civil rights, this study may motivate them to take a closer look at the distribution of their funding formulas. It may even point to alternative approaches to funding (e.g., equity-based funding or innovation grants), where policymakers might consider new ways to build institutional capacity to improve internal performance.

There is much work to be done on this topic. Future research may consider how educational outcomes and resources at specific MSIs are affected by these policies. We hope our study contributes to ongoing efforts to improve funding models and to consider issues of equity and fairness in that pursuit. Left uncorrected, these results suggest funding models have the potential to work against college completion goals if it turns out that MSIs truly are disadvantaged by these models. The answer to this question will vary from state to state, but regardless of the context we hope our study helps advance opportunities for the greatest number of our nation’s students of color and the colleges where they enroll.

*This study is part of a special issue in American Behavioral Scientist–edited by William G. Tierney and James Dean Ward—titled, “The role of state education policy in ensuring access, achievement, and attainment in higher education.” Please click here to review other studies in this volume looking closely at the state role in educational opportunity.

A Call to Graduate Students from the AERA Graduate Student Council: Seeking Volunteers

Hello Graduate Students, 

  

 We are looking for graduate students familiar with the New York area and attending the 2018 AERA Annual Meeting to serve as volunteers for a Local Liasion Project. Navigating Manhattan and the surrounding New York area may be daunting for those visiting the area for the first time. Local Liaisons will work alongside AERA Graduate Student Council members in the registration area and offer assistance as needed. 

Summary Details:  

April 12th-14th Local Liaisons will sit in the AERA volunteer booth for two-hour shifts and answer questions regarding the Manhattan and New York area. Questions will largely concern directions, advice regarding restaurants, transportation options, etc. 

What’s Provided:

Volunteers will have a dynamic opportunity to network with other graduate students and members of AERA at large. We are working with AERA to expand this program, and local liaisons will be an invaluable source of information for those unfamiliar with the New York area. 

Sign Up:

If you would like to volunteer, please fill out this form. 

Direct link: https://goo.gl/forms/miZyulv0Ht7orYrj2

Stay Connected and Tell Others :

Remain engaged with the AERA Graduate Students via the links below.  

AERA  Graduate Student Listserve:http://www.aera.net/About-AERA /Member-Constituents/Graduate- Student-Council/News-and- Announcements/Graduate-Student -Listserv 

AERA GSC Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AERA. Grads/

AERA GSC Twitter: https://twitter.com/AERA_Grads

Thank you for your time and attention.

Starting with Theory

By: Bach Mai Dolly Nguyen

Assistant Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs

Lewis and Clark College 

Progressive change. Social change. Transformative change. These are a few of the labels of change that serve as the ending point found in the conclusions of many higher education manuscripts. But, what does that change look like? Feel like? How is it defined? And, how do we measure that it has been achieved? These are difficult questions because the parameters of change are boundless, existing in countless iterations within the imaginaries of all who care to ruminate on the possibility of progress. In Rojas’ (2017) conceptualization of approaches to social theory, he offers one way through which change may be measured:

                                                       

The translation of theoretical ideas into research agendas requires a link between the concepts that motivate theory (social class) and the specific things that can be measured (income or occupation). The practice of social research isn’t what happens after you learn some theory. It is what motivates the theory, tests the theory, and is framed by the theory. Theories, cases, and evidence mutually create each other (p. xxiii).

Put another way, change can be measured by examining the moment(s) when theory and research intersect, or what Rojas (2017) calls “the point of contact between theories and empirical data” (p. xxii). It goes without saying that theory is broadly imbedded in research, as most journals call for a theoretical framework in publication submissions. Viewed as specific “points of contact,” the notion of theory, as it is largely applied now, pivots away from instances when theory and research brush up against each other, to the precise locations where they do (or should) meet face-to-face.

What are those locations? In the research process, the subject of whether theory guides the design, analysis, or writing aspects of the study is often called into question. However, the more fruitful question is: how can theory be applicable to just one, or only two, of those aspects of the research process? Applying theory to only the written component of research, for example, would seem to be the actualization of fitting a square peg into a round hole. Personally guilty of attempting to retroactively apply theory to a completed study design, I acknowledge that it is possible to find an almost seamless match between theory and research—oval peg, round hole. However, starting a research project with theory, allowing it to guide the iterations of design, to imbed itself within the analyses, and to organically become part and parcel with what is written about the study represents a wholly different form of research. This approach to research focuses on how the roots of inequality are maintained and manifested, centering the lens for understanding those inequities at the heart of studies, and allowing research questions to critically consider how empirical work contributes to the mitigation of that inequality. As hooks (2000) advises, “Everything we do in life is rooted in theory. Whether we consciously explore the reasons we have a particular perspective or take a particular action there is also an underlying system shaping thought and practice” (p. 19). As it is in life, research—in its entirety—is rooted in theory and put together, give life to how social change moves from abstraction to measured.

As a field that sits at the axis of other disciplines (e.g. sociology, social psychology, policy), higher education scholars are privy to an abundance of theories from which to build and contribute knowledge. There is ripe opportunity, then, for the field to deeply consider how a spectrum of theoretical lenses can advance, challenge, and modify research in postsecondary education. With greater commitment, or a recommitment, to examining the “points of contact” between theory and research, higher education scholarship may better understand, measure, and achieve the change that it has so aptly envisioned.

References:

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. London, United Kingdom:

Pluto Press.

Rojas, F. (2017). Theory from the working sociologist. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.