a descriptive portrait of higher education leaders

Transcription

POLICY ENTREPRENEURSHIP:
A DESCRIPTIVE PORTRAIT OF HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERS
by
Rivka Aliza Felsher
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of
The College of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL
May 2015
Copyright 2015 by Rivka Aliza Felsher
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
After completing this major milestone, one final question comes to bear: how can
I thank the myriad people who have touched my life, inspired me, guided me, advised
me, taught me, laughed and cried and screamed with me, and helped me get to this place
in my life? It seems almost impossible to answer. Fortunately, this small space affords
me some room to be candid, and yet almost immediately irrelevant. It is my hope that
this is read with an appreciation for both my sincerity and my humor—this is such
cathartic release.
I only get to do this once in life, so here is my “Academy Award” list of “thank
yous” that may be even gushier than anything I’ve already posted on Facebook (you
never know who in future generations might find this ancient text (irrelevancy #1) and
ponder: “what exactly is an Academy Award and what the heck was Facebook?”
(irrelevancies #2 and #3)). Most importantly and sincerely, to those personal sages who
have passed on who have impacted my education, guiding my path toward making
positive and creative change in the world: Rabbi Michael Robinson, Charlie Haynie,
Magda Cordell McHale, Dr. Ibrahim Jamal, Dr. Mary Murdock, and Esta and Harry
Aronowitz—zichronam liv’rachah, may their memory be a blessing. To a select but
diverse group of academics and mentors who have helped me grow professionally, who
challenged the notions of what I can do, who took me out of my comfort zone at times
and nurtured me as well, who challenged my thinking and opened me to new
possibilities, and to whom I often pushed back, and continue to do so, as I tend to learn
iv
things the very hard way...after all, I am still learning (irrelevancy #4, as this list will no
doubt grow in my pursuit of lifelong learning!): Dr. Ira Bogotch, Dr. Valerie Bryan,
Rabbi Helene Ferris, Dr. Deborah L. Floyd, Roger Firestien, Mike Fox, Rabbi Michael B.
Greenbaum, Dr. Anne Mulder, Dr. John Pisapia, Dr. David Severson, Dr. Robert
Shockley, Dr. Dianne Wright, and Dr. Eliah Watlington. We may not always see eye to
eye, and when we don’t I appreciate you allowing me to find my own way. To
colleagues and mentors at ASHE and CSCC, thank you for your support, comraderie,
encouragement, ideas, and stimulation—it’s great to connect with folks who really speak
your language. To Dr. Mark D’Amico, Randy Goin, and Dr. Marion Merzer, thank you
for your input that helped shape this research. To Kathy Dubois and Safeeia Azam at
FAU: you are gems and miracle workers!
On this specific journey, my dissertation committee deserves special recognition.
To Dr. John Pisapia, Committee Chair, thank you for giving me the freedom to explore,
even if it meant I would be making a 360° in some ways (you knew that would happen,
didn’t you?), and for your trust, flexibility, and patience. To Dr. Deborah L. Floyd, thank
you for the same, and for your generosity, guidance, support, and mentorship as well. To
Dr. Patricia Maslin-Ostrowski and Dr. J. Dan Morris, thank you both for the big
questions—they forced me to consider my approaches, methods, interpretations, and
biases and strengthened this work. To Dr. John E. Cech, what a delight to have you
among the committee to offer your diversity of experience and your invaluable feedback.
Thank you also to my initial pilot participants, and my follow-up pilot
participants, both sets of whom remain blinded for publication, but who deserve to know
how important their support was in shaping this study. Of course to all of the 23
v
participants in this study, I thank each of you for your time, expertise, frank conversation,
and generous spirit. Your work is critical, compassionate, and inspiring.
To The Writing Hour: Fran Kamin, Dr. Elizabeth Gray-Swann, and Kristin
Brittain, there are just no words...this was exceptional. To Writing Hour 2: Dr. Barb
Rodriguez, Anelle Alfred, Jamonique Holt, and new additions too...thank you for our late
night jams...let’s keep it up! To my classmates and peers: too many to list individually,
from each of you I have had something to reflect upon and learn, to share, question, and
argue. It has been great fun, thank you! To good friends near and far who have stood by
me—also too numerous to mention—I hope I have been a good friend in return. Thank
you for your forgiveness, patience, support, and laughter.
vi
ABSTRACT
Author:
Rivka Aliza Felsher
Title:
Policy Entrepreneurship: A Descriptive Portrait of Higher
Education Leaders
Institution:
Dissertation Advisor: Dr. John Pisapia
Degree:
Doctor of Philosophy
Year:
2015
As the gap between the haves and have-nots widens, the call for reform in higher
education in the United States intensifies. Policy actors, philanthropists, and academics
from across the political spectrum work on various policy solutions, creating a policy
environment that is complex and often contentious. Incrementalists claim that major
policy reform is unlikely since unknown variables and inexplicable events can stall or
dismantle policy initiatives. In such environments, policy entrepreneurs—those
individuals who advocate for policy innovation, work for change, and help shape policy
solutions from within and without government—try to break through the barriers of
incremental politics. As important as this role is to the influencing and structuring of
higher educational policy, it has not yet been explored. This study fills this gap in the
extant literature by cataloging the characteristics and skills that enable higher education
vii
policy entrepreneurs at the state and national levels to persevere and accomplish
sustainable and innovative higher education reforms over time.
The study employed a descriptive, revelatory, single-case study research design
(Yin, 1994) interpreted from the postpositivist paradigm (Creswell, 2007). The major
source of data, drawn from 23 interviews with policy entrepreneurs from across the
United States, was triangulated with document reviews and a multi-level coding strategy.
Then the data were framed by the research questions and juxtaposed against nine
propositions extracted from the extant literature to derive the study findings.
The policy entrepreneurs in this study are creative political leaders with a passion
for improving educational opportunity. They are adaptable, pragmatic on details of
policy shaping, and use the means available to them to influence. Policy entrepreneurs
don’t work in isolation; rather, they are network dependent. They value collaboration
and seek to develop relationships and create opportunities to advocate for policy
innovations that benefit students before institutions or organizations, taking calculated
risks with interminable patience, and making sacrifices for their cause. They have
learned to listen, compromise, reach across the aisle, strategize, and recognize windows
of opportunity. They work hard to build credibility and trust. Workplace mentorships
and peer relationships are a major source of their learning and development.
viii
DEDICATION
This is dedicated to all students who swim upstream: “Just keep swimming, just
keep swimming, just keep swimming, swimming, swimming. What do we do? We swim,
swim. Oh, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, I love to, swimming. When you WAAAAAANNTTT to swim
you want to keep on...”
This is also dedicated to all the candy, cupcakes, and chips that helped me stay
awake during late night writing sessions—I thank you, especially for the 15 pounds. To
coffee, thank you for late night perks and morning rebounds. Without you and the junk
food, this dissertation would not have been physically possible...literally. To wine,
thanks for being there when my mind was numb after long hours of coding and
copyediting—not that you provided any clarity, but I did get to sleep...eventually.
To my parents, thank you for your encouragement, study space, and nourishing
meals. To my husband, Rich, you en-“rich” my life (yuk, yuk!). Thank you for helping
me make time and space to do this, I know at times that was a challenge...now it’s your
turn! To Lilah and Eitan, thank you for your sacrifice when I could not be there for you.
You may have been locked out of the office, but you were never locked out of my heart.
Here’s to many more years of make-up stories and magic blankie. If you have learned
anything from me through this, aside from some new “grown-up words,” may it be a
strong work ethic and sacrifice, knowing your priorities, making choices and living with
them, pursuing work that does good in the world, and injecting imagination, optimism,
humor, and fun into your life. Be curious, be creative, be courageous!
POLICY ENTREPRENEURSHIP:
A DESCRIPTIVE PORTRAIT OF HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERS
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xvi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xvii
I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
Background .................................................................................................................. 1
The Problems of Context and Definition ..................................................................... 4
Purpose and Research Questions ............................................................................... 10
Primary Research Question................................................................................... 10
Sub-research Questions ......................................................................................... 10
Significance................................................................................................................. 11
Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 13
Creative Political Leadership and the 4Ps ............................................................ 15
Propositions ............................................................................................................... 18
Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 20
II. Thematic Review of the Literature................................................................................22
Diversity of Policy Models ......................................................................................... 22
Power, Influence, and Higher Education Policy ........................................................ 30
A Moral Imperative for Change in Higher Education ............................................... 34
The Policy Entrepreneur in Higher Education ........................................................... 36
Policy Innovation ....................................................................................................... 43
ix
Trends in Higher Education Policy Making in the United States .............................. 45
State-level Higher Education Policy Making Approaches ......................................... 49
Relevant Literature Underpinning the Study’s Conceptual Framework..................... 50
The 4Ps of Creativity ............................................................................................ 50
Policy Entrepreneur as Creative Person .......................................................... 52
Leadership Traits ...................................................................................... 52
Leadership Skills....................................................................................... 53
Values and Motivation ............................................................................. 55
Policy Innovation as Creative Product ............................................................ 56
Policy Entrepreneur Behaviors as Creative Process ...................................... 57
Creative Problem Solving ........................................................................ 57
Use of Strategy.......................................................................................... 61
Information Dissemination ....................................................................... 64
Use of Social Networks ............................................................................ 65
Creative Press.................................................................................................. 66
Complex Political Context ....................................................................... 67
Learning Processes.................................................................................... 68
Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 69
III. Methodology and Methods ..........................................................................................71
Evolution of the Research Design............................................................................... 72
Use of Bricolage in Research Design ................................................................... 74
Purpose and Research Questions ................................................................................ 76
Primary Research Question................................................................................... 77
x
Sub-research Questions ......................................................................................... 77
Setting ........................................................................................................................ 77
Unit of Analysis and Participants ............................................................................... 77
Methods and Procedures ............................................................................................ 78
Sampling .............................................................................................................. 78
Selection Criteria ............................................................................................ 80
Recruitment ..................................................................................................... 80
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 81
Data Sources and Instruments ......................................................................... 81
Public Documents .................................................................................... 81
Interviews.................................................................................................. 82
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 84
Data Sources and Instruments Analysis .......................................................... 84
Public Documents .................................................................................... 85
Multilevel Coding Strategy ............................................................................ 86
Role of the Researcher ............................................................................................... 89
Credibility, Transferability, Dependability, and Confirmability ................................ 89
Limitations ................................................................................................................. 92
Delimitations .............................................................................................................. 93
Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 93
IV. Findings .......................................................................................................................95
Description of Context ............................................................................................... 95
Primary Research Question....................................................................................... 101
xi
Overview of Participant Demographics ............................................................. 101
Sub-research Question a ........................................................................................... 108
Policy Diffuser ................................................................................................... 108
Information Disseminator .................................................................................. 109
Data Gatherer and Listener .......................................................................... 111
Policy Analyzer and Policy-focused Reporter ............................................. 111
Agenda Setter ..................................................................................................... 113
Recognizing, Opening, and Creating Windows of Opportunity .................. 114
Coalition Builder................................................................................................. 115
Advisor and Mentor ........................................................................................... 118
Problem Solver.................................................................................................... 119
Sub-research Question b ........................................................................................... 122
Leadership Traits ................................................................................................ 122
Leadership Style.................................................................................................. 125
Leadership Skills................................................................................................. 126
Political Skills .................................................................................................... 128
Minimization of Political Partisanship.......................................................... 128
Values ................................................................................................................. 130
Self-sacrifice ................................................................................................. 131
Humor ........................................................................................................... 132
Motivation .......................................................................................................... 133
Creative Problem Solving .................................................................................. 136
Networking ......................................................................................................... 138
xii
Data Use and Dissemination .............................................................................. 142
Sub-research Question c ........................................................................................... 146
Sub-research Question d ........................................................................................... 154
Emergent Findings ................................................................................................... 159
Self-identification as Policy Entrepreneur Unclear ........................................... 159
Lobbying Inconsistently Valued ........................................................................ 159
Preference for Descriptive Statistics .................................................................. 161
Potential Gender Imbalance ............................................................................... 162
Entry Into the Field ............................................................................................ 164
Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 167
V. Summary, Discussion, and Conclusions ....................................................................168
Brief Review of the Problem .................................................................................... 168
Study Purpose ........................................................................................................... 169
Review of the Study Design ..................................................................................... 169
Limitations ............................................................................................................... 171
Delimitations ............................................................................................................ 172
Summary of Findings................................................................................................ 172
Context ................................................................................................................ 172
Primary Research Question................................................................................. 173
Sub-research Question a ..................................................................................... 173
Sub-research Question b ..................................................................................... 174
Sub-research Question c ..................................................................................... 175
Sub-research Question d ..................................................................................... 175
xiii
Emergent Findings ............................................................................................. 176
Self-identification as Policy Entrepreneur Unclear ..................................... 176
Lobbying Inconsistently Valued .................................................................. 176
Preference for Descriptive Statistics ............................................................ 176
Potential Gender Imbalance ......................................................................... 177
Entry Into the Field ...................................................................................... 177
Discussion ................................................................................................................ 178
Proposition 1 ....................................................................................................... 178
Proposition 2 ....................................................................................................... 180
Proposition 3 ....................................................................................................... 181
Proposition 4 ....................................................................................................... 182
Proposition 5 ....................................................................................................... 183
Proposition 6 ....................................................................................................... 184
Proposition 7 ....................................................................................................... 186
Proposition 8 ....................................................................................................... 186
Proposition 9 ....................................................................................................... 187
Revised Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ 189
Creative Person ............................................................................................ 190
Creative Press................................................................................................ 193
Creative Process ........................................................................................... 194
Creative Product............................................................................................ 196
Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 197
Implications for the Development of Policy Entrepreneurs ............................... 197
xiv
Implications for the Practice of Policy Entrepreneurship .................................. 198
Implications for Future Research ....................................................................... 199
A Descriptive Portrait of the Policy Entrepreneur in Higher Education ............ 200
Recommendations .................................................................................................... 206
Recommendations for the Development of Policy Entrepreneurs ..................... 206
Recommendations to Improve the Practice of Policy Entrepreneurship ............ 209
Recommendations for Research ......................................................................... 212
In Closing ................................................................................................................. 216
Appendices.......................................................................................................................218
Appendix A. IRB Approval Letters ......................................................................... 219
Appendix B. Document Collection and Review Guide ........................................... 222
Appendix C. Document Summary Form ................................................................. 223
Appendix D. Email Recruitment Script ................................................................... 224
Appendix E. IRB Approved Consent Forms ............................................................ 225
Appendix F. Interview Protocol and Questions ....................................................... 227
Appendix G. Definition of Terms ............................................................................ 230
Appendix H. Codebook ............................................................................................ 233
Appendix I. Documents Reviewed in Phase 2 of This Study .................................. 257
References .......................................................................................................................270
xv
TABLES
Table 1. Research Question and Proposition Alignment of This Study ...........................21
Table 2. Coding Cycles by Data Source ...........................................................................88
Table 3. Participants in This Study in Order of Interview ..............................................103
Table 4. Participants’ Formal Educational Background and Longevity as Measure
of Success..........................................................................................................105
Table 5. Participants’ Policy Innovation Foci.................................................................107
Table 6. Leadership Traits Emphasized as Important to their Success by Study
Participants........................................................................................................124
Table 7. Leadership Styles Emphasized as Important to their Success by Study
Participants........................................................................................................125
Table 7. Leadership Styles Emphasized as Important to their Success by Study
Participants........................................................................................................127
Table 9. Political Skills Emphasized as Important to their Success by Study
Participants........................................................................................................130
Table 10. Values Set Expressed by Study Participants....................................................133
xvi
FIGURES
Figure 1. A Priori Conceptual Framework of the Policy Entrepreneur in the Policy
Domain of Higher Education ............................................................................15
Figure 2. A Representation of the Need to Foster Policy Innovation Through the
Creative Political Leadership of the Policy Entrepreneur in Higher
Education ...........................................................................................................45
Figure 3. Parallels Between Creative Problem Solving and the Stage Model of the
Policy Process ...................................................................................................61
Figure 4. A Representation of the Case Study Research Design for This Study .............76
Figure 5. A Posteriori Conceptual Framework of the Policy Entrepreneur in the
Policy Domain of Higher Education ...............................................................190
xvii
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
Capitalism’s impact on higher education can be understood as both a blessing and
a curse. Capitalist democracy allows for exponential rates of technological innovation,
knowledge expansion, and perhaps most importantly, general improvement of quality of
life for our nation’s citizenry. At the same time, the benefits of this form of social
governance are unevenly distributed to citizens. For example, in the last three decades
the income gap in the United States between the highest-income families and middle and
lowest income families has grown (McNichols, Hall, Cooper, & Palacios, 2012;
Thompson & Smeeding, 2014) despite an overall increase in gross national income based
on purchasing power parity (up from $47,240 to $53,960 from 1994 to 2013) (The World
Bank Group, 2014).
Over the past three decades, “the gap in the college entry rate between the
bottom- and top-income quartiles increased from thirty-nine to fifty-one percentage
points” (Bailey & Dynarski, 2011, p. 7). Goldrick-Rab (2012) notes that, “Among highachieving students, just 44 percent of those whose families are in the bottom 25 percent
of annual income attend college, compared with 80 percent of those whose families are in
the top 25 percent” (para. 2). Bailey and Dynarski (2011) assert that despite long-term
gains in college access and completion overall, an inequality exists when controlling for
family income in college persistence and completion that may be driven by financial,
academic, and social factors that students face. “Even if rates of college entry were
1
miraculously equalized across income groups,” they explain, “existing differences in
persistence would still produce large gaps in college completion” (Bailey & Dynarski,
2011, p. 18).
Other financial issues plague many college and university students in the lower,
working, lower middle, and middle classes in the United States. The cost of attending
college has outpaced the financial aid available to many students. Student loan debt
levels are very high among thousands of graduates who cannot pay them back in short
periods of time and essentially carry a mortgage on their own employment which can
economically handicap students entering into lower-paying fields such as education,
nursing, and entry-level private sector jobs. “As of June 2010, total student loan debt
passed total credit card debt for the first time” (Kantrowitz, 2010, para. 1). While
students tend to pay down personal credit card debt first due to the higher interest rates,
their college debt remains a burden for many years. Further, Pell Grant awards,
traditionally awarded to first generation, low-income students, has not kept pace with
rising college costs, although recent legislation has significantly increased the award per
student and nearly twice the number of students will be awarded in 2014-2015 than in
2013-2014 (The College Board, 2014). Still, “Inflation-adjusted tuition and fees
increased by 51% at public four-year institutions….The maximum Pell Grant covered
87% of average public four-year tuition and fees in 2003-04, but only 63% in 2013-14
(and 31% of tuition, fees, room and board)” (The College Board, 2014, para. 1).
According to The Pew Charitable Trusts (2013), “The chances of moving from the
bottom of the family income ladder all the way to the top are three times greater for
someone with a college degree than for someone without one” (p. 1). Students from
2
low-income families, therefore, are at a triple disadvantage in terms of college access,
completion, and protection from economic recession.
Higher education has many purposes; to produce graduates capable of attaining
gainful employment, to produce graduates with critical thinking skills who can
participate in the democratic system as independent thinkers, and to produce graduates
who can change the lives of others through their creative efforts. Bergeron, Baylor, and
Flores (2014) recently stated:
Public investment in higher education is vital to the performance of our
economy. First and foremost, America’s public colleges and universities offer
citizens a steadfast path toward personal economic growth and opportunity. An
educated workforce also delivers a substantial return on public investment in the
form of economic expansion through sustained employment, higher earnings,
new and continued business development, and ultimately, higher tax revenues.
(para. 1)
And yet, Bergeron et al. recognize that this ideal is at risk. High college costs and a
decrease in median family income of 3% among the middle class has resulted in an
increase in the share of a family’s income needed to meet postsecondary education
expenses. This contributes to student loan debt that disproportionately impact students
of color (Bergeron, et al., 2014).
“The structure of a social system can facilitate or impede the diffusion of
innovations in a system” (Rogers, 1995, p. 25). Higher education as a tool for personal
economic opportunity and as an instrument of the public good is threatened by economic
stratification. The public demands reforms in higher education while the complexity
3
and nuance of the American political system creates immense barriers to innovation, not
the least of which is incremental politics and political partisanship.
The Problems of Context and Definition
Policy-makers are not ignorant of the issues that challenge American higher
education, yet it appears that policy is not moving toward innovative policy solutions
(Brewer & Tierney, 2011; Wildavsky, Kelly, & Carey, 2011; Zemsky, 2009).
Wildavsky et al. (2011) see higher education “set in ways that were established decades
or even centuries ago” (p. 1). Public opinion of higher education has shifted as funding
and cost patterns have changed. “Higher education has to change. It needs more
innovation” (Wildavsky et al., 2011, p. 1). Policy innovation is possible, though an
infrequent occurrence, and many factors may come into play in creating innovative
policy (Lindblom, 1979). Schneider, Teske, and Mintrom (1995) asserted that new
leadership, new political movements, and new policies can lead to radical change in
complex political systems. Legislators aware of the issues may not have the information
needed to design appropriate solutions (D. Baime, personal communication, April 20,
2012). Legislators are limited by constituent demands, committee work, and time. The
expansion of academic research production, the expertise and prominence of well-heeled
and powerful lobbying groups, think tanks, commissions, associations, and politically
active citizens groups create knowledge to feed the policy making system. Still, policy
makers lament that much of the knowledge produced is not readily available, is not
delivered in a way that is usable, or is not delivered at all (D. Baime, personal
communication, April 20, 2012; Krugman, 1994; Mullin, 2012).
4
A gap exists, therefore, between the knowledge created by academics, think
tanks, citizens groups, and government agencies and the need for new knowledge by
state and federal legislators to make informed and effective policy decisions. This gap
can be filled by policy entrepreneurs, those individuals who advocate for policy
innovations in a variety of policy arenas including institutional, local, regional, state, and
national. This is not the only issue, of course, but it is a salient one for academics and
students of higher education leadership eager to engage in the policy arena. To help
bridge this gap also requires an understanding of the larger political context within
which policy making occurs in the United States and for which there are many
theoretical models that help to explain who impacts policy. These models generally are
organized into the following categories: institutional, systems, pluralism, elitism,
rationalism, and incrementalism (Hahn, 1987). It is important for those who would like
to engage in policy making in higher education arenas be aware and become familiar
with these models, particularly pluralism as it relates to the diversity of groups and
actors that shape policy from a political perspective, the systems approach that considers
environmental system input and output and politics, and incrementalism which is a
realistic model that helps explain why policy change is piecemeal and generally helps to
maintains policy status quo (Hahn, 1987).
Mintrom and Vergari (1996) asserted that the policy entrepreneurship model
could help explain how policy innovation can come about despite the piecemeal reality
of policy change in the United States. They ground their model in Sabatier’s (1988)
advocacy coalition model which helps explain the broader context of policy making.
Advocacy coalitions are groups of individuals tied together by shared values and who
5
develop coordinated activities around a particular policy focus. Mintrom and Vergari
(1996) also stated that Sabatier’s approach cannot explain how change comes about, but
the when used as the context for policy entrepreneurship, makes a significant
contribution. Policy entrepreneurship adds the dynamic of action in an effort to explain
how change is possible and how it can be encouraged.
The role of the policy entrepreneur as a change agent who has the characteristics
and resources to help bridge the knowledge-to-legislation gap is not well understood in
general policy areas despite several studies of the activities of policy entrepreneurs
(Mintrom & Norman, 2009), and rarely appears in the higher education literature
(Goldrick-Rab & Shaw, 2007). In fact, the term policy entrepreneur itself is not widely
used or understood in higher education, outside of policy analysts and legislators’
familiar with the term. The term is riddled with differing terminology and definitions
(King, 1990, p. 151), although in general focuses on action more than characteristic or
position (Mintrom & Vergari, 1996). Thus, policy entrepreneurs may be, for example,
elected officials such as legislators and executive officers, as well as lobbyists, analysts,
scholar-activists, and other policy actors. This definitional quagmire hampers the design
of systematic study and comparative research and makes the distinguishing of policy
entrepreneurs from other policy actors challenging (see Appendix G for definitions of
terms used in this study).
Pisapia, Jelenc, & Mick (2015) eloquently synthesize an understanding of the
economic and finance literature on entrepreneurship, defining it as a nexus of three
phenomena: opportunity; individuals who can recognize an opportunity; and these
individuals’ capability to respond irrespective of existing resources—a definition that
6
suggests that entrepreneurs have different characteristics, think differently, behave
differently, and work differently than non-entrepreneurs. This is similar to the
understanding of the term and definition of policy entrepreneur employed in this study
that was derived from the policy literature, but misses some essential elements in terms
of its function in the public sector. Mintrom and Vergari (1996) also employ a trilateral
definition of the policy entrepreneur that includes the functions of: recognizing windows
of opportunity to insert an innovation policy solution to an identified need; taking
reputational, political, and sometimes financial risks in advocating for a policy
innovation; and coordinate networks to create the resources and acceptance that can help
implement a policy innovation. While not lobbyists per se, although there is overlap,
“policy entrepreneurs seek to sell their policy ideas, and in doing so, to promote
dynamic policy change” (Mintrom & Vergari, 1996, p. 423).
The term policy entrepreneur was originally coined by Walker in 1974 and later
defined by Kingdon in 1984, as “advocates for proposals or for the prominence of an
idea” in policy making (Kingdon, 2011, p. 122). To operationalize the term policy
entrepreneur for their longitudinal study within in the K-12 education policy domain,
Roberts and King (1991) defined policy entrepreneurs as those individuals “who work
from outside the formal governmental system to introduce, translate, and implement
innovative ideas into public sector practice” (p. 152). They found that policy
entrepreneurs had a dominant problem solving function in their work, what Roberts and
King (1991) categorized as “creative/intellectual activities” (p. 167), along with the
functions of strategizing, mobilizing support, and administrative activities. While this
definition is improved, it is not specific enough to help measure characteristics and
7
behavior for an analysis such as the one performed in this study. Mintrom (1997)
defined a policy entrepreneur as “people who seek to initiate dynamic policy
change…through attempting to win support for ideas for policy innovation” (p. 739).
Policy entrepreneurs are distinguished by their willingness to invest their resources for a
potential return (Kingdon, 2011); therefore, they are working toward an actual policy
outcome, not merely the prominence of an idea. In this study, policy entrepreneurs are
defined as experienced leaders, inside or outside the formal governmental system, who
are motivated and equipped with a set of cognitive and behavioral characteristics and
skills that enable him or her to advocate for policy innovation that has the potential to
break through the barriers of incremental politics.
Policy innovation is another conflicted term in the literature used without a
standard definition (e.g., Kaufmann, 1993; Mintrom, 1997; Vehar, 2008). It is generally
accepted that policy innovation is policy reform that offers new and useful alternatives
to current policy problems within a particular policy context. That is definition is the
one employed in this study. Further, “Innovation is linked to creativity, risk taking, and
experimentation, attributes that are often lacking in large, public or nonprofit
organizations (Wildavsky et al., 2011, p. 15). Therefore, there are few major broad
based policy innovations currently being enacted or proposed in the higher education
policy arena (Paulson, 2007; St. John, Daun-Barnett, & Moronski-Chapman, 2013;
Zemsky, 2009), and only a few major policy innovations in the past, including the
creation of the junior/community college, land grant colleges, federal guaranteed student
loans, and Pell grants. Minor, or more local level policy innovations are more common,
such as Montana’s College!NOW program, “a multi-year initiative led by the Montana
8
University System to make two-year higher education more accessible, better
coordinated, better understood and, as a result, better utilized statewide,” (Montana
University System, 2014, para. 1) supported by the Lumina Foundation and designed to
increase and enhance the mission and impact of the state’s two-year colleges for
students and the state’s economy (Cech, 2012). Other examples include the Minerva
Project, Khan Academy, and the competency-based model of Western Governors
University (Blumenstyk, 2014). Perhaps we are in a period of equilibrium soon to be
punctuated by change (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Jones & Baumgartner, 2012) as
milestone legislation; perhaps the college completion agenda marks the punctuation. Or
perhaps this decade will prove to be one of incremental change (Lindblom, 1959, 1979).
Only time will tell, but what is within our current understanding, regardless of the policy
theory one may choose to view the development of policy innovations, is that it takes
people to make change happen and the policy entrepreneur is at the center of this reform.
In this study, it is suggested that policy entrepreneurship is the vehicle that
particularly motivated policy actors use to navigate the complex policy arena in which
they operate in order to effect change by drawing attention to policy issues and solutions
to help set policy agendas. Policy entrepreneurship refers to the cognitive and
behavioral traits, skills, and resources that the policy entrepreneur can bring to bear on
the formation, advocacy, and implementation of policy innovation. It is important to
note that policy entrepreneurship is impacted by many factors, and success is never fully
within the control of the policy entrepreneur. Advocating, influencing, and shaping is
helped or hindered by other factors such as the impact of other individuals, groups, or
coalitions; changes in political climate; or even natural or man-made disasters that can
9
shift the focus of political agendas (Kingdon, 2011). Further, the policy entrepreneur
never works alone (they are not singular policy heroes); rather, they are active
participants in a network of policy actors that influence change.
Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to create a descriptive portrait of the successful
policy entrepreneur in the national and state higher education policy making arenas by
(a) identifying exemplar policy entrepreneurs who are advocating for, or who have
advocated for, higher education policy innovations in varying levels of policy arenas in
the United States; (b) cataloging their characteristics and behaviors; (c) determining how
they developed the qualities that make, or made, them successful (lasting in the field);
(d) identifying strategies they employ to overcome barriers to policy innovation; (e) and
helping to validate an original theoretical framework for understanding the policy
entrepreneur as creative political leader for use in future research. The following
research questions were directly drawn from this study’s purpose:
Primary research question. What can be learned from successful policy
entrepreneurs who advocate for, or who have advocated for, sustainable higher
education policy innovation in the United States?
Sub-research questions.
a. What is their role in higher education policy making?
b. What are their characteristics (i.e., leadership traits, leadership skills, values, and
motivation) and behaviors (i.e., problem solving, networking, date use and
dissemination)?
10
c. What strategies do they use to overcome barriers to higher education policy
innovation?
d. How do they gain and develop the skills and strategies needed to be successful?
It is important to note that this study is not portraiture, an art-centered qualitative
research methodology akin to ethnography that is heavily based on a co-constructed
(participant to researcher) narrative (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997).
Significance
This study is significant, for without sustainable and innovative higher education
policy innovations, issues of access, affordability, and college completion toward
gainful employment will rarely be responded to in a broad, systemic way due to the
incremental nature of policy change in the United States. Pasque (2010) stressed that “if
there is not a change in how stakeholders with power perceive and act upon higher
education’s relationships with society, then higher education will be increasingly
perceived as a private good....This will continue to perpetuate inequalities in this era of
conservative modernization” (p. 32). This results in policy stagnation and the deepening
of consequences for the American people and the nation’s economy. As Zemsky (2009)
suggests, “the history of American higher education is well supplied with reform
movements that have gone nowhere” (p. 203). Change is possible, according to Zemsky
(2009), but efforts at reform require new strategies that avoid vilifying, taking the
process seriously, and beginning with feasible but well planned, long-term strategies that
seek to “develop common definitions and shared solutions” (p. 204). The changing
landscape of higher education creates challenges, but also opportunities, for policy
entrepreneurs. Understanding how these opportunities can be more quickly realized
11
through the role of the policy entrepreneur in higher education fills a major void in the
literature this role and its functions have not yet been documented in this policy domain
(Goldrick-Rab & Shaw, 2007; Mintrom & Norman, 2009).
Researchers have called for additional studies that compare successful and
unsuccessful policy entrepreneurs, policy entrepreneurships in various policy domains,
the impact of policy entrepreneurs on innovation diffusion, and policy networks that
influence policy innovation and the role of policy entrepreneurs in those networks
(Mintrom, 1997; Mintrom & Norman, 2009; Roberts & King, 1991). “Policy
entrepreneurs have rarely been the focus of discussion in previous literature on agenda
setting and the policy-making process” (Mintrom, 1997, p. 741). The approach to this
study is unique in that the focus is on the policy entrepreneur as unit of analysis and
extends beyond their activities, but also traits, skills, and development. This serves to
inform theory building and research on policy entrepreneurship, higher education policy
making, leadership theory in policy contexts, and theoretical approaches to policy
reform. The findings from this study also help to inform those who wish to learn to
engage in policy entrepreneurship and develop their traits and skills and make their
entrée into the higher education policy making arena. Given the dearth of higher
education leadership programs with a focus on developing policy actors and policy
programs that lack a focus on higher education, findings regarding the characteristics of
the policy entrepreneurs in this study suggest the need to develop policy entrepreneurs at
institutional, state, and national levels from within formal academic programs.
12
Conceptual Framework
Building off of prior foundational definitions of the policy entrepreneur that
focus on their functions and activities, and employing the technique of theoretical
bricolage (Kincheloe, 2001, 2005), the conceptual framework for this study overlays
what is currently understood about the functions and activities of the policy entrepreneur
in other policy domains, the context in which policy entrepreneurs operate in higher
education, and new ways of understanding the problem solving, networking, and
executive/administrative functions, as well as the values, traits, and skills, of policy
entrepreneurs from select theoretical approaches identified from literature outside of
policy studies and higher education leadership. In doing so, a comprehensive
framework for defining, studying, and developing the role of the policy entrepreneur in
higher education in the United States is realized.
Policy entrepreneurs work within a system that both stifles and creates
opportunities for policy innovation, therefore they must learn how to find, create, and
take advantage of windows of opportunity (Kingdon, 2011). Yet, the complex political
contexts within which policy entrepreneurs operate create barriers to policy innovation.
Lindblom and Woodhouse (1993) place the work of policy entrepreneurs in the context
of the structural, technical, economic, or contextual barriers they may face within the
incremental political context of the United States. Kingdon (2011) stated that, “much of
the [policy] process is governed by large events and structures not under any
individual’s control” (p. 225). The conceptual framework posed here is deliberatively
broad considering the complex, uncertain, and ever-changing contextual factors of their
13
work, the variety amongst the participants, and a lack of clarity around the traits and
skills that help policy entrepreneurs succeed (achieve longevity).
The study is informed by Mel Rhodes’ seminal 4 Ps model (1961), that has been
validated by major scholars in the creative studies discipline including Isaksen,
Murdock, Firestien, and Treffinger (1993), Rickards (1999), as well as Runco and
Pritzker (1999). The main constructs of the model are creative person, creative process,
creative press, and creative product, what Rhodes called the “4Ps.” These constructs are
used in this study (see Figure 1) to focus the inquiry on different components of the
policy entrepreneurial role and guide the researcher’s analysis. While Rhodes’ model
has never been applied to policy research, the researcher believes it is a good fit for this
study because it fits with the creative functions of the policy entrepreneur as concluded
by Roberts and King (1991) and others. The model enables the cataloguing of traits and
behaviors within the context within which the policy entrepreneur operates and allows
for consideration of skills development and outcomes.
14
Creative Person:
PE Characteristics
of Leadership
Traits, Leadership
Skills, Values &
Motivation
Creative Product:
Policy Innovation
Policy
Entrepreneurship as
Creative Political
Leadership
Creative Press:
Complex Political
Context and PE
Learning
Processes
Creative Process:
PE Behaviors of
Problem Solving,
Networking,
Information
Dissemination,
Game Strategizing
Figure 1. A priori conceptual framework of the policy entrepreneur in the policy
domain of higher education.
Creative political leadership and the 4Ps. The concept of creative political
leadership begins with the concept of creative leadership. According to Mueller,
Goncalo, and Kamdar, (2010), “stereotypes of ‘creative people’ and ‘effective leaders’
may sometimes clash in the minds of social perceivers” (p. 3). This is because
demonstrating creativity in leadership involves introducing the uncertainty and risk that
comes from novel, unproven ideas and solutions which stands contrary to expectations
15
of leadership that include clear goals and control over situations. On the other hand,
creative leadership and charismatic leadership share the traits of uniqueness and
individualism, and Mueller et al. (2010) note, charisma is a characteristic of creative
people in some scholarly models (see Elsbach & Kramer, 2003; Goncalo, Flynn & Kim,
2010). Puccio, Mance, and Murdock (2011) define creative leadership as:
The ability to deliberately engage one’s imagination to define and guide a group
toward a novel goal—a direction that is new for the group. As a consequence of
bringing about this creative change, creative leaders have a profoundly positive
influence on their context (i.e., workplace, community, school, family) and the
individuals in that situation. (p. 28)
This definition shares commonalities with the definition of the policy entrepreneur used
in this study: including motivation to innovate in a way that is a breakthrough for a
group. In the case of the policy entrepreneur the group is outside one’s organization and
includes the policy actors that converge around a policy issue.
Golden (2010) shared that it was Howard Gardner who, in 1993, argued that the
creativity of political leadership is based on political leaders’ public service, but that can
put them at personal risk because their creative expression is a reflection of self, of their
values. Gardner also argued that, “creative ideas often develop more slowly because
they are worked out in public over time without the possibility of private or controlled
experimentation” (as paraphrased by Golden, 2010, p. 930). As this study demonstrates,
there is an element of risk to the creative leadership embodied by many of the
participants as well as an understanding of the time required in the creative process as
policy entrepreneurs work toward innovative policy solutions. “Every successful
16
political leader must forge a personal and political identity to help them navigate the
swirling currents of public life” (Renshon, 2014, p. 138). This critical understanding of
the development of the political leader implies that creative ability is required of the
successful political leader to envision possibilities and influence other to create
acceptance for new solutions.
To this extent, the a priori conceptual framework for this study is based upon 4Ps
(Person, Product, Process, and Press) typology (Rhodes, 1961). The researcher positions
the creative political leadership role of the policy entrepreneur and related characteristics
(leadership traits, leadership skills, values, and motivations) in the type of creative
person; policy innovation in the type of creative product; behaviors (problem solving,
networking, strategizing) in the type of creative process, and the complex political
context and learning processes of the policy entrepreneur in the type of creative press.
It is important to note that the researcher deviates from Rhodes’ (1961) 4Ps
model in that she is defining motivation as a character trait rather than as a process and
has placed this trait in the creative person component of the framework. This deviance
from Rhodes’ model is a result of Rhodes’ definition being of the process domain of
motivation theory, and the researcher’s definition being of the content domain of
motivation theory. Content theories include Maslow’s (1943) popular theory of human
motivation as an example; however, the researcher surmised that McClelland, Atkinson,
Clark, and Lowell’s (1953) and McClellan’s, (1961) achievement motivation theory to
be more appropriate to the unit of analysis of this study as it is centered on needs for
achievement, affiliation and power, although as will be reported in later chapters, an
alternative perspective on motivation was ultimately found to fit with the data. Rhodes’
17
(1956) perspective on motivation was limited to the relationship between motivation and
creativity, and this study examined motivation and leadership as further explanation for
the deviance.
The conceptual framework also deviated from Rhodes’ (1961) model in that the
researcher included learning processes as an aspect of press, something that Rhodes
considered as process. While the researcher does not deny that learning is most
certainly a process, the 4Ps model is only a starting point, and as it is more a typology of
creativity research, while this study is one seeking a typology of creative political
leadership. Therefore, the researcher took license to shift learning from process to press,
working on a theoretical assumption to be examined through the data, that learning
impacts behavior of the policy entrepreneur from an internal (reflective or
metacognitive) position while it also is achieved from external environmental influence.
Propositions
This qualitative study derived from a research design that was originally planned
as mixed method study (see Chapter 3). Propositions were derived from the conceptual
framework to explore and examine the components of the multifaceted conceptual
framework in an effort to find theoretical fit with the data and satisfy the purpose of this
study. Despite the evolution of the research design (elucidated in Chapter 3) during the
data collection and analysis phases due to the nature of the data collected, the
propositions were retained as a relevant tool for analysis in this case study (Yin, 1994,
2003) and are listed below and in Table 1 juxtaposed against the research questions of
this study.
18
•
Proposition 1. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate leadership traits and skills
that enable their success (longevity) in higher education policy making.
•
Proposition 2. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate knowledge and use of a
personal leadership values system.
•
Proposition 3. Policy entrepreneurs will fall within a game player motivation
quadrant that helps explain their motivation to foster policy innovation in higher
education.
•
Proposition 4. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate use of techniques that align
to stages in the CPS model in their policy solution formulation, advocacy, and
implementation activities.
•
Proposition 5. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate knowledge and use of
strategies in their work that can be understood through basic principles of
economic game theory.
•
Proposition 6. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate use of a variety of methods
to collect and disseminate information in various policy advocacy activities.
•
Proposition 7. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate development of networks of
relationships and use of their social networks to advance their ideas.
•
Proposition 8. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate use of their traits and skills
to respond to the pressures and challenges of the complex political context in
which they operate.
•
Proposition 9. Policy entrepreneurs develop proficiency in their traits and skills
through a combination of learning processes, both deliberate and unintentional,
in response to the pressures and challenges of the political environment.
19
Chapter Summary
This chapter introduced the reader to the context of this study and questioned
how incrementalism can be mitigated by the work of the policy entrepreneur in higher
education policy making in an effort to create sustainable and innovative policy at state
and national levels. Meanwhile, policy theory indicates that incrementalism, the slow
and staggered progress of the policy making system in this country, does not preclude
major reform in times where the equilibrium is punctuated. However, it does mean that
in order to understand how policy entrepreneurs can be effective and broaden their
influence, it is important to be able to define what they are and begin to frame the
components of their role that work in their favor.
The purpose of this study was to begin that examination by identifying active
policy entrepreneurs in higher education working at state and national levels; catalog
their traits, skills, behaviors, strategies, values, and motivations; and discover their
developmental pathway. The research questions formed the frame to begin this journey
to understand. By juxtaposing these questions against the constructs identified in the
conceptual framework a template of nine propositions was extracted for analysis (see
Table 1). In doing so this study refines a definition of the policy entrepreneur and
conceptual framework for understanding their role in higher education policy making as
a foundation for future research.
20
Table 1
Research Question and Proposition Alignment of This Study
Proposition
Aligned Sub-research Question
1. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate that
they have certain leadership traits and skills that
enable their success (longevity) in higher
education policy making.
SRQb. What are their characteristics (i.e., leadership
traits, leadership skills, values, and motivation) and
behaviors (i.a., problem solving, networking, date
use and dissemination)?
2. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate
knowledge and use of a personal leadership
values system.
3. Policy entrepreneurs will fall within a game
player motivation quadrant that helps explain
their motivation to foster policy innovation in
higher education.
4. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate use of
techniques that align to stages in the CPS model
in their policy solution formulation, advocacy,
and implementation activities.
SRQa. What is their role in higher education policy
making?
SRQc. What strategies do they use to overcome
barriers to higher education policy innovation?
knowledge and use of strategies in their work
that can be understood through basic principles
of economic game theory.
making?
6. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate use of a
variety of methods to collect and disseminate
information in various policy advocacy
activities.
making?
development of networks of relationships and
use of their social networks to advance their
ideas.
making?
8. Policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate use of
their traits and skills to respond to the pressures
and challenges of the complex political context
in which they operate.
making?
9. Policy entrepreneurs develop proficiency in
their traits and skills through a combination of
learning processes, both deliberate and
unintentional, in response to the pressures and
challenges of the political environment.
SRQd. How do they gain and develop the skills and
strategies needed to be successful?
21
II. THEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Chapter 1 introduced the complex, political context within which policy
entrepreneurs operate in the higher education policy making arena in the United States
and offered a new operational definition of the policy entrepreneur for facilitation of the
examination of this unique role. It also introduced the multifaceted conceptual
framework upon which the propositions for examination of the policy entrepreneur can
be explored in an effort to satisfy the study’s purpose to create a descriptive portrait.
This chapter will elaborate on the contextual political background of higher education
policy making in the United States, synthesize the major policy theories out of which
policy entrepreneurship emerged, and expound on theoretical concepts upon which this
study was based including political and educational leadership, creativity and innovation,
and policy innovation. Lastly, relevant literature that helped to formulate the conceptual
framework will be elucidated.
Diversity of Policy Models
The literature on higher education policy is problematic in that it is not well
defined and lacks a body of knowledge, a language, and methodology (Slaughter, 1990).
It has traditionally stemmed from a fairly unified economic theoretical perspective;
particularly individual and institutional rational choice models for understanding policy
making from a systemic perspective (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2011). Sabatier (2010) notes
other models: stages, multiple-streams, punctuated-equilibrium, advocacy coalition,
policy diffusion, and funnel of causality, all of which have some application for higher
22
education, though little literature exists in higher education policy utilizing these models.
Policy diffusion has been cataloged by Berry and Berry (1999) and includes Rogers’
(1995) original definition, “the process by which innovation is communicated through
certain channels over time among the members of a social system,” (p. 5) as well as
regional diffusion (Hagerstrand, 1953), ideological diffusion (Grossback, NicholsonCrotty, & Peterson, 2004), national interaction (Walker, 1969), vertical influence
(Walker, 1969), internal determinants (Berry & Berry, 1999), and policy entrepreneurship
(Kingdon, 1984, 2011). Rogers (1995) further defined diffusion as a “kind of social
change...the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social
system” (p. 6).
From an economic perspective there is Slaughter and Rhoades’ (2011), “academic
capitalist knowledge learning regime” which is “characterized by the increased
commercialization of colleges and universities” (p. 433). College administration markets
learn to respond to the wants of their student consumers. Instructional materials,
courseware, and research are developed as revenue generators for corporations. In
developing these products, universities often bear more cost than benefit, and students do
not benefit equally. Yet, “federal and state initiatives often provide a policy framework”
for the academic capitalist knowledge learning regime. For example, some states enable
universities to hold equity in private corporations (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2011).
Slaughter and Rhoades also help shed light on higher education’s shift to adapt to the
new post-Reaganomics economy. Auxter (2010) argued that Reagan’s New Federalism
program led to an increase in contingent faculty impacting instructional quality,
23
decreased funding for colleges of education, social sciences, and the arts, cuts in staff and
course offerings impacting students’ access to classes and support.
From a political science perspective, most scholars approach the study of higher
education policy making from a conflict theory perspective where competing interests are
fighting for access to the policy making arena and seek to win or stop policy debates.
Ashworth’s (1972) political analysis still rings true nearly forty years later in the United
States:
It is unrealistic to expect to develop, in connection with the federal programs
affecting higher education, a composite, integrated, and thoroughly
comprehensive policy within an effective federal system of government, within a
central government established upon the concept of separation of powers, and
within a system of higher education based largely on institutional autonomy. (p.
1)
Congress continues to debate levels of student aid with some legislatures aligned with
corporate interest groups, research foundations, professional associations that lobby “The
Hill,” and higher education institution leadership. The federal government sets the
agenda through financial incentives, and states maintain responsibility for
operationalizing policy in ways that address access and affordability for their citizens and
responds to workforce needs. “This disjunction between federal policy and state
strategies is one of many problems facing educational reform in the 21st century” (St.
John et al., 2013, p. 1). “The alchemy of public and political policy formulation, decision
making, and implementation is murky at best” (Woodbury, 2000, p. 67).
24
Rational choice models have dominated the understanding of higher education
policy change despite claims from scholars that market forces do not drive change so
much as deliberate public policy does (Duderstadt, Atkins, & Van Houweling, 2002).
From this perspective, interest groups, political parties, legislatures, executives, and
bureaucracies all seem to avoid higher education policy change. Rational choice models
focus on aggregate demand of individual student choice and try to take into account
price, availability of options, family income, quality of education (i.e., college
reputation), even distance. But as McPherson (1978) notes, rational statistical models
suffer from data problems some of which include too many choices to calculate, the need
to reduce statistical models to the effect of college cost and family income against student
ability and college selectivity, and how to account for private-public price variables,
among others. McPherson acknowledges that while internal validity of rational choice
studies may be strong, they are not believable to the public and so need to be looked at in
the aggregate for trends and plausible answers to how students choose to invest in higher
education.
Rational choice is a model of ideals that assumes the availability of information,
goal clarity, and the ability to analyze all possible alternatives, resulting in a single,
favored policy solution. A major critique of rational choice theory, is that this is not how
policy making works in reality, thereby giving way to incremental policy making; much
less ideal, but much more pragmatic given constraints regarding information and
resources. Rational choice is also problematic in that it tries to plan for more than it can
manage (Auxter, 2010; McPherson, 1978). The rational choice model of higher
education policy focused on demand-side economics for centuries, but being a market-
25
driven model, inadequately addressed demand from the poor and unprepared (St. John et
al., 2013). Though the more affordable community college system emerged at the turn of
the twentieth century and federal student aid programs have begun to support access to
college by reducing the price to economically disadvantaged students, there are many
inequities that remain that threaten the purpose of higher education for the benefit of the
public good (Zumeta, Brenaman, Callan, & Finney, 2012).
Simon (1947) asserted that, “Policy actors do not operate with complete
information nor engage in exhaustive cost-benefit analyses when making policy
decisions. Instead, policymakers make compromises, adapting to the situation at hand”
(Smith & Larimer, 2009, p. 50). What Simon coined as “bounded rationality” is an
explanation of humans’ lack of cognitive ability due to numerous limitations to behave
rationally even when it’s our intent to do so, the result is decision-making that is “good
enough.” Public choice theory is a neoclassical, rational choice, theory applied to the
public sector. Governments too, can behave with bounded rationality, but this is at the
center of major public debate.
Public goods, such as education, are indivisible and yet it the responsibility of the
government to provide education to match the public’s demand for it (Tiebout, 1956).
But since it is inherently indivisible, it is inefficiently produced. Tiebout (1956)
suggested that local control of public good could counteract inefficient production of
public goods, allowing a market to be established. However, his theory assumes a perfect
information and perfect mobility, and the evidence is mixed in this respect (Smith &
Larimer, 2009).
26
Social return models also provide an alternative to rational choice models that
focus on completion rates, student aid, and cost-benefit analyses. While these are
important to study, they only present a snapshot of the social reality of higher education
policy and its impact on society. A contrary perspective is offered by Sen (1999) who
argues that the measurement of economic development should be measured not by
overall graduation rates per se, but the ability of people, all people, to access education,
and be able to use that education in ways that improve their quality of life, such as their
freedom to vote, make policy, engage in political debate, and have a say in how their
daily lives are created. Sen’s economic argument is counters current capitalist market
economics that dictate federal higher education policy. Sen invokes Adam Smith’s call
for adequate public expenditures for education. St. John et al. (2013) recognize that
Sen’s (1999) approach “provides[s] a better, more workable basis for altering the ways
we conceive of the relationships between policymaking, policy research, and integrating
citizens voices into the policy process” (p. 267). This approach is appropriate for those
looking to create sustainable policy innovations at the state and federal level, which is the
focus of this study.
Despite political partisanship in the U.S., scholars have written about higher
education policy change for decades from one unified paradigm – that change is slow and
incremental at best. Higher education policymaking is piecemeal and haphazard (Finn,
1978) and revolves around the debate about the value of higher education as a public or
private good. The American public is in support of major change to support higher
education as a public good, but it still mistrusts the exclusivity, perceived financial
mismanagement (evidence by skyrocketing costs), and barriers to equivalent
27
opportunities in higher education for a diverse student demographic (Newman, Couturier,
& Curry, 2004). Policy innovation does not require a paradigm shift, but does require
those who have the knowledge and ability to strategize for policy reform within the
current paradigm. Callan and Finney (1997) reflected that, “higher education has a long
history of ignoring exogenous agents, preferring instead to define the academy from
within” (p. 13) which they blame on the traditions of academic freedom and faculty
governance. These traditions, they say, have isolated higher education and the public is
losing its sense of the public good that higher education can offer (Callan & Finney,
1997).
The Nash Equilibrium (1950) is a competitive economic game theory, that can be
used to explain the inability of the American political system to break-through the
recycling of higher education policy making resulting in incremental change and repeat
issue appearance on the governmental agenda set by the elite (Dunn, 2008; Kingdon,
2011). “A Nash equilibrium embodies a stable ‘social norm’: if everyone else adheres to
it, no individual wishes to deviate from it” and that sometimes “the players’ ‘expectations
are coordinated’” (Osborne, 2003, p. 20). When all actors or players obey the rules of the
social norm and no one deviates from it, their expectations and behaviors are said to be
coordinated (Osborne, 2003). Certain strategies can be employed by game players, those
who participate in a series of decisions in a policy arena—such as policy entrepreneurs,
legislators, lobbyists, and others—that can help tip the balanced scales of national, and
state higher education policy making as described by the Nash Equilibrium, thereby
impacting sustainable policy innovation. Lindblom’s (1979) definition of disjointed
incrementalism as “fragmentation of analytical work to many (partisan) participants in
28
policy making” (p. 517) is a complementary policy theory that also serves to explain the
cyclical nature of American policy making and incremental policy reform.
Incrementalism is not without its critics. As Smith and Larimer (2009) pointed
out, Lindblom conceived of incrementalism in 1959 as a “purely theoretical exercise in
the application of satisficing to the study of public policy” (p. 54) and that “empirical
evidence to support such a claim was lacking (p. 54), that is until a study by Davis,
Dempster, and Wildavsky in 1966 regarding the federal budgetary process. Jones,
Baumgartner, and True (1998), then tested incrementalism with the introduction of
punctuated equilibrium that helps explain how more radical change is able to
occasionally break-through the status quo. Baumgartner and Jones (1993) allow that
incrementalism explains periods of stability, but that periods of rapid change that result
from breakdowns in policy subsystems are punctuated in a way that establishes a new
equilibrium for evaluating policy. Breakdowns in controlled subsystems that
Baumgartner and Jones (1993) called “policy monopolies” (p. 4) can occur when outside
actor penetrate the subsystem and create instability. Smith and Larimer (2009) have
concluded that both incrementalism and punctuated equilibrium are both useful, and yet
not completely explanatory nor predictive models.
The policy subsystems model introduced by Freeman (1965), and further
developed by Heclo (1977, 1978), helps explain who is involved in policy making in the
United States and how they were related. It focused on the role of lobby, interest groups,
organizations, and even citizens in loosely organized groups not based on party affiliation
but on policy, named “issue networks” (Heclo, 1978). Sabatier (1988) tested Heclo’s
model, reinforcing the concept and renaming issue networks as “advocacy coalitions”
29
which are groups of people and representatives of organizations who work in tandem to
bring about a policy change. The difference between issue networks and advocacy
coalitions is in the level of technical expertise and ideology that advocacy coalitions have
among their group (Sabatier, 1988). His theory enables the conceptualization of both
periods of policy stagnation and periods of change based on the strength of coalitions and
tensions that break them apart and cause new ones to form, similar to Baumgartner and
Jones’ (1993) explanation for breakdowns in policy monopolies that cause punctuations
in an otherwise stable system. Finally, it must be noted that Kingdon’s (1984) multiple
streams theory also theorizes how windows of opportunity open around issue salience
and dialogue, events, and crises, enabling policy entrepreneurs to move in and get their
solution on a policy agenda. Following in the footsteps of Mintrom (1997, 2000, 2013),
it is Kingdon’s approach, in combination with incrementalism, punctuated equilibrium,
and advocacy coalitions, upon which this study’s assumptions about policy making in the
United States rests.
Power, Influence, and Higher Education Policy
In the higher education policy making process, policy influencers who work in the
policy subsystem, building relationships and coalitions, and sometimes disrupting them,
include lobbyists who traditionally carry a negative connotation in academic circles and
in public opinion (Cook, 1998), yet serve an important educational role for legislators,
helping them gain broad-based support for initiatives. Individual lobbying efforts are
supported by lobbying groups that have much greater potential to organize and pool
resources to create policy networks that influence federal higher education policy; this
includes the Big Six policy network that drives lobbying efforts for higher education and
30
consists of the American Council on Education (ACE) which is a coordinating
association consisting of many others; the American Association of Community Colleges
(AACC); the Association of American Universities (AAU); the American Association of
State Colleges and Universities (AASCU); the National Association of Independent
Colleges and Universities (NAICU); and the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). The only accredited for-profit member of the
Big Six is the Career College Association (CCA), a member group of ACE (Cook, 1998).
Speaking of the necessity of higher education policy institutes to engage in large-scale
analyses for the purpose of contributing to the public debate on major policy issues, Gais
and Lawrence (2000) assert, “an enormous number of private think tanks, associations,
and advocacy organizations are competing for the attention of government officials” (p.
85).
Ironically, higher education, that traditionally prided itself in its disdain for
political lobbying claiming that its higher moral purpose elevated the discipline from
needing to get involved in politicking, has changed its stance somewhat, though the belief
remains strong among faculty.
It was not until the so-called Republican revolution that the community decided it
was more important to keep higher education issues on the public agenda than to
worry about losing support from those who thought colleges and universities
should avoid political involvement. (Cook, 1998, p. 4)
This change in attitude provides an opportunity for the study and practice of policy
entrepreneurship, a political activity that is not the same as lobbying, but can encompass
lobbying techniques.
31
Lobbying and policy entrepreneurship are entwined concepts, but they differ in
function and approach to policy influence (Godwin, Ainsworth, & Godwin, 2012). Both
roles involve building relationship and coalitions with vested interests in a particular
policy (Tozzi & Levinson, 2014). The major distinction is that policy entrepreneurs work
for the public good and not for personal reward or wealth (Tozzi & Levinson, 2014).
However, the even lobbying efforts by members of the Big Six who in essence work for
the public good in their roles as representatives of public and private institutes of higher
education, have been criticized. “Few outside of Washington, D.C. realize that a powerful
higher education lobby exists or that its interests are not always aligned with those of
students or the public” (McCann & Laitinen, 2014, p. 21). McCann and Laitinen are
particularly concerned with the lobbying efforts of the National Association of
Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) that represents private institutions, that
successfully lobbied to ban a federal student unit record system, realized in 2008. And as
Kelly (2012) asserted, “When it comes to lobbying Congress and the president, for-profit
colleges cannot hold a candle to America’s public and nonprofit colleges and
universities” (para. 3) who work hard, according to Kelly, “in fending off federal efforts
to increase accountability and transparency” (para. 8). But as Kelly criticized higher
education lobbyists, McCann and Laitinen made note of the Big Six’s turnaround and
current willingness to come together on a federal data system. From the perspective of
the advocacy coalitions model, the tension brought upon by NAICU helped realize the
ban, but a tide of change is apparent among it’s peers and a work-around is likely in the
near future, a true policy innovation that improves data exchange nationwide. Adler
(2007) too has criticized the Big Six:
32
The same lobbying muscle they’ve often put in the service of worthy causes
they’ve also used to thwart promising reforms. On a range of issues, higher ed
has stood up for its own narrow strategic or pecuniary concerns, rather than the
broader interests of students or the country at large. In short, though it represents
institutions that loudly proclaim a mission of public service, the higher education
lobby more often acts like any other Washington trade group. (para. 10)
Criticisms come from the political left and political right, but what is clear is that the Big
Six make a tremendous impact in their lobbying efforts.
Think tanks too, play a prominent role across the globe, with more than half
originating in the United States (Abelson, 2002), and are a source of lobbying activity as
well as policy entrepreneurial activity. They originated as a military term during World
War II, and refer to secure defense strategy locations, but have evolved to include a class
of organizations “engaged in policy analysis” with no one formal definitions (Abelson,
2002, p. 8). Think tanks are “generally nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations,” many in
the United States that are so by “applying as educational organizations undertaking a
commitment to increase public awareness” regarding policy issues” (Abelson, 2002, p.
9). These think tanks are research-based and idea-generating at their core, and must
remain nonpartisan, are limited in their ability to lobby law-makers and bureaucrats,
cannot publicly endorse any political party, and must avoid “certain overt political
activities,” although they do take positions on various policy issues (Abelson, 2002, p. 9).
Abelson (2002) concludes in his study of the think tank phenomenon in the United States
and Canada, that thank tanks’ do shape political dialogue but in various ways, using
different strategies, and with differing impact depending upon the stage of the policy
33
cycle. Their influence on policy making “ultimately depends on a wide range of internal
and external factors” (Abelson, 2002, p. 4). In the United States, the fragmented political
system along with access to policy-makers enables think tank influence, while at the
same time, limited institutional resources work against think tank influence (Abelson,
2002). Some well-known think tanks are adept at gaining media coverage, and directing
policy reports and white papers directly to policy-makers, especially presidential
candidates during election campaign season. Yet, presidents, legislators, and others in
the public eye are not the primary policy actors, they simply “serve as the lenses through
which are refracted diverse pressures, ideas, questions, problems, and policy options,
emanating directly and indirectly from countless sources” (Lindblom & Woodhouse,
1993, p. 4). Ultimately, it is important to understand that “political interactions and
flawed human judgments play a primary role in making policy, and these necessarily
involve partisan disagreements that are settled by voting and other manifestations of
power” (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993, p. vii).
A Moral Imperative for Change in Higher Education
Whether grand, systemic change is required, or a series of incremental reforms
over time, either way the status quo is inadequately serving the diversity of the American
public. McPherson and Schapiro (2007) argued that:
…every interesting problem of policy or practice depends on principles as well as
facts. Just as higher-education leaders should become good at assessing evidence
and analyzing the consequences of particular decisions, so they should become
good at identifying and understanding the values underlying the issues with which
they wrestle. (para. 2)
34
One of those underlying issues is the debate about higher education as human capital or
public good. Giroux (2006), for example, argues eloquently for the understanding of the
pursuit of higher education for the benefit of the public good from the perspective of the
development of an engaged citizenry as a way to strengthen democracy:
Under the reign of neoliberalism and corporate culture, the boundaries between
commercial culture and public culture become blurred as universities rush to
embrace the logic of industrial management while simultaneously forfeiting those
broader values both central to a democracy and capable of limiting the excesses of
corporate power. (Giroux, 2006, p. 259)
This critical perspective needs to be balanced with the understanding that an employed
and productive citizenry also strengthens democracy.
The expanding inequities related to higher education are particularly relevant at
the time of this study as the United States continues to struggle to regain economic
stability as it recovers from the recent Great Recession of 2007-2009. According to a
recent study published by The Pew Charitable Trusts (2013), “The chances of moving
from the bottom of the family income ladder all the way to the top are three times greater
for someone with a college degree than for someone without one” (p. 1). As costs and
student debt load increases the gap between the haves and have-nots barely improves, and
by some measures is widening, in large part due to the increasing gaps in educational
attainment, students from low-income families, therefore, are at a triple disadvantage in
terms of college access, completion, and protection from economic recession. The result
is intellectual classism, defined by the researcher as social stratification based on access
to, and acquisition understanding, and use of information, with implications on people’s
35
economic health, security, and welfare. With inadequate education, many students of
limited financial means also lack the knowledge to use information to improve their
quality of life. It is this information illiteracy that is at the source of intellectual classism.
In these times it is not surprising that the value of higher education continues to
be debated at state and federal levels. Higher education has many purposes; to produce
graduates capable of attaining gainful employment, to produce graduates with critical
thinking skills who can participate in the democratic system as independent thinkers, and
to produce graduates who can change the lives of others through their creative efforts.
Higher education as a tool for personal economic opportunity and as an instrument of the
public good is threatened not only by economic and intellectual stratification, but also by
the calls for accountability, greater access, and affordability. The public demands
reforms in higher education while the complexity and nuance of the American political
system creates immense barriers, not the least of which is partisanship and incremental
politics. There is therefore, a moral imperative to improve access and affordability, while
holding institutions of higher education accountable across all sectors, as well.
The Policy Entrepreneur in Higher Education
Within the complex system of coalitions, partisanship, and debate about the
direction of higher education in the United States, policy entrepreneurs work from within
and without to help realize change. Given contextual pressures, no solitary policy
entrepreneur singularly moves policy forward. How they work within a system where
opinion and positions shift over time is not well understood. Unlike lobbyists, policy
entrepreneurs have the public good in mind; how they are able to work toward this good,
even when pressure from above requires them to sometimes work against their own
36
values, has not been researched. To date, there is little research available about these
shapers of policy; and less is understood in the academic versus policy community.
Economists have defined the term entrepreneur for hundreds of years with varying
definitions regarding buying and selling of goods and services with a variety of tertiary
functions such as agency, innovation, exploitation, achievement, and risk-taking (see
Drucker, 1964; McClelland, 1961; Say, 1803/1964; Schumpeter, 1934; and Shapero,
1975).
Policy entrepreneurs are not involved in starting, acquiring, selling, or trading
resources for business for the sake of making money. Policy entrepreneurs are engaged
in learning, leading, advocating, politicking, planning, and working toward the
implementation of a policy idea, solution, or program to address a public need. A policy
entrepreneur, as defined by Kingdon (2011), is an individual who “advocates for
proposals or for the prominence of an idea” (p. 122), and is distinguished by a
willingness to invest their resources for a potential return regarding their policy idea.
Policy entrepreneurs are defined as experienced leaders, inside or outside the formal
governmental system, who are motivated and equipped with a set of cognitive and
behavioral characteristics and skills that enable him or her to advocate for policy
innovation that has the potential to break through the barriers of incremental politics.
Their work is enhanced by the possession of a specific skill-set, as well as honed natural
traits, that enable their success, that is, their longevity in the field, and their pushing for
policy reform that results in new and useful policy. Policy entrepreneurs in this study are
further distinguished by the scope of their work that is necessarily limited to higher
education policy reform.
37
Kingdon (2011) offered that, “the activists who comprised the first Reagan
administration had a vision of smaller government, balanced budgets, and lower taxes”
(p. 123). They advocated for these changes and saw them realized. By the same token,
the Big Six higher education lobbying network came alive as a result of Reaganomics,
advocating for a reinvestment in higher education that the new economic policy had
begun to pare down (Cook, 1998). Policy entrepreneurs, therefore, are active on both
sides of the political divide in the United States. They have, it is surmised, expertise, an
ability to speak for or represent others, or may hold a position of authority over a
decision-making process. Policy entrepreneurs have political skills and connections, they
may be consultants, but work for the issue they value, not for others. They know how to
negotiate and they are persistent. Policy entrepreneurs are more than mere lobbyists,
although they may be by function. They are able to couple solutions to problems. The
role they play in higher education policy making is worth studying in terms of how they
may broker deals (coupling), soften the environment, and persevere through complex
challenges (Kingdon, 2011).
Studies on policy entrepreneurs are growing in popularity. Examples from
Europe include research regarding the role of policy entrepreneurs in policy making in
the development of cross-border regions within the European Union (Perkmann, 2003,
2007), public health care policy in Sweden (Guldbrandsson & Fossum, 2009), global
exchange rate policies Collihan (2009), strategic foreign policy realignment between
Greece and Turkey (Blavoukos & Bourantonis, 2012), in negotiating processes within the
European Union (Blavoukos & Bourantonis, 2011), and in regional governance programs
in Germany (Böcher, 2011). Mintrom’s (2013) case study, focused on stem cell research
38
in the United Kingdom and Italy, highlights policy entrepreneurs’ ability to persist over
long periods of time to build coalitions for support in atmospheres of high tension based
on moral grounds. This builds on Mintrom’s earlier work of 1997 and 2000 that found
that the context within which a policy entrepreneur operates could inhibit or enhance
their effectiveness.
In China, Zhu (2012, 2013) found the work of policy entrepreneurs crucial to
housing policy reform. Mackenzie (2004) analyzed policy entrepreneurship in education
policy in Australia in the 1990s, finding context and political skills to be factors that
impact their success. Botterill (2013), also out of Australia, challenged the efficacy of
policy entrepreneurs beyond their role as advocates in her comparative case study on
drought policy between the United States and Australia. Her work found policy
entrepreneurs’ impact limiting due to their dependence on others in a political system and
their lack of decision-making authority. In the Middle East, Cohen (2011) examined the
influence of policy entrepreneurs on national health insurance law in Israel in a case
study that also strived to categorize their motivations and strategies, finding that policy
entrepreneurs are motivated to serve the public. Cohen’s (2011) study is contradictory
however, in that the definition of a policy entrepreneur employed is actually that of a
lobbyist, “an individual who exploits an opportunity in order to influence political results
for his/her own benefit, in the absence of the resources required for such activity” (p. 10).
Further, Cohen discusses the use of a Trojan horse strategy, and by this it could be
inferred that Cohen was mistakenly referring to policy opportunists (Weissert, 1991), and
not true policy entrepreneurs. These criticisms make Cohen’s findings unreliable, and
39
demonstrate that much is still unknown about the motivations and strategies of policy
entrepreneurs.
In the United States, studies have also been undertaken in a variety of contexts.
Kingdon’s (1984) examination of policy entrepreneurship in federal policy making
spanned a variety of policy domains and established the model within the larger
theoretical framework of multiple streams and windows of opportunities. Policy
entrepreneurship was not even the focus of his work, but a natural curiosity by
researchers across the globe about exactly who helps stimulate policy reform and how
they do it, has led to a diversity of research on the topic, most often with regard to policy
entrepreneurs’ roles as agenda setters. Similarly, Polsby (1984) looked at policy
entrepreneurship in the U.S. Senate, later Schiller (1995) took a similar approach.
King (1990) studied policy entrepreneurs and racial politics leading up to the
Civil Rights Era. Weissert (1991) analyzed legislative policy entrepreneurs, making a
distinction between them and “policy opportunists” based on policy entrepreneurs’
expertise and persistence, and not merely as window of opportunity chasers. Roberts and
King (1991) identified and interviewed only six policy entrepreneurs, among many other
policy actors, in their now well-cited study, suggesting that their work created a
benchmark for research that could expand upon their findings, as this study sought to do
as well.
Other examples include the following studies. Rinkus Thompson’s (1994) case
study about cabinet member Bowen’s work under the Reagan Administration as a policy
entrepreneur, found that his work was most impactful in expanding Medicare. Mintrom
and Vergari (1996) used a policy entrepreneurial frame to analyze education reform
40
related to charter schools in Michigan. Garrett (2001)’s dissertation asserted policy
entrepreneurs’ role as diffusers of innovation with regard to trends in policy regarding
Americans with disabilities. McCown (2004) examined policy entrepreneurs’ impact in
federal domestic violence policy. Berman (2008) looked at the role of policy
entrepreneurs in the establishment of middle grades literacy benchmarks in the Florida.
Anderson Crow (2010) looked at policy entrepreneurship and recreational water rights
policy in Colorado. Similarly, McDowell Ward (2010) examined the role of policy
entrepreneurs in the creation of a marine national monument in Hawaii. Also in 2010,
Corbin studied the role of policy entrepreneurs and agenda setting around the focusing
event of Hurricane Katrina, and independently that same year, Sistovaris examined their
role in U.S.-Cuban policy and relations.
From a different perspective, Smith (2008) examined the American President as
policy entrepreneur in the policy domain of health care policy. Shortly thereafter,
Blumenthal (2009) offered a portrait of Senator Ted Kennedy as policy entrepreneur with
hones political skills, someone who did research and became an expert, who could
translate research and advocate effectively, and who took risks. “Despite different
interpretations of policy entrepreneurs’ functions, policy entrepreneurship is essentially
the process of introducing innovation in policy making, involving generation, translation,
and implementation of new ideas,” (Zhu, 2013, p. 100) asserted. These studies would
agree with Zhu’s assertion for the most part, but all share their own narrow set of findings
and have set the stage for further research.
A similar concept is social entrepreneur, those who take on major societal
problems with relentless force (see Bornstein, 2007; Dees & Battle Anderson, 2006;
41
Drayton, 2002; Light, 2008; Miller, Wesley, & Williams, 2012; Paul, Martin, & Osberg,
2007; Shockley & Frank, 2009). Schneider and Teske (1992) also used the term political
entrepreneur. Their look at municipal entrepreneurship focused on context and the
factors that can foster drive for entrepreneurial behavior in local government. Shortly
thereafter, Schneider et al. (1995) used the term public entrepreneur, and the distinction
between that and the political or policy entrepreneur is not made. What was asserted is
that individuals in the role of the political/public/policy entrepreneur are agents of change
(Schneider et al., 1995).
Research on policy entrepreneurs in higher education is much more limited. In the
United States, Pershin (2006) studied policy entrepreneurship and the community college
baccalaureate in Florida through frame analysis and found that reframing was a principle
strategy of policy entrepreneurs that enabled policy acceptance and adoption. Davis
(2007) included policy entrepreneurs in his study of higher education change in Utah.
Policy entrepreneurs in this study includes university presidents with expertise, political
connections, and negotiation skills that enabled them to impact statewide policy
regarding the evolving mission of higher education in that state. Ingle, Cohen-Vogel, and
Hughes (2007) traced the influence of policy entrepreneurs on higher education in the
southeast region of the U.S. and found that policy entrepreneurs were substantial sources
of information, expertise, and policy diffusion. Protopsaltis (2008) studied the impact of
policy entrepreneurship on Colorado’s higher education policy regarding postsecondary
vouchers finding that their influence can be traced back to their position as well as
strategy. In a rare scholarly piece on the topic of policy entrepreneurship in higher
42
education in the United States, McLendon (2003) asserted the role from a review of the
literature without description and offering several suggestions for future research.
From an international perspective, Corbett (2003) examined policy entrepreneurs
and their impact on the development of a major unifying shift in higher education in the
European Union, finding that policy entrepreneurs played a significant role in policy
formulation; however, the limitations of the study include a lack of data and analysis as to
how they operated and why they were involved. Turner Johnson, Hirt, and Hoba (2011)
looked at policy entrepreneurship in African higher education and found that policy
entrepreneurs are a prominent figure in the Association of African Universities, a higher
education policy network in Africa, and how their work focused specifically in the areas
of research and education networking, how universities respond to the HIV/AIDS
epidemic, and education toward sustainable development on the continent. From these
studies we can conclude much that Michael Mintrom has concluded throughout the years,
but no study comprehensively examined the traits, skills, values, motivations, behaviors,
and strategies of policy entrepreneurs in higher education, or elsewhere, thereby giving
an incomplete portrait of this pivotal role in the advancement of policy innovation.
Policy Innovation
Innovation is a term with many definitions. The seminal literature from the
discipline of creativity and innovation studies generally agrees that innovation has the
common trait of novelty (Magyari-Beck, 1993). Rogers (1995) defined innovation as “an
idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of
adoption” (p. 11). Novelty, however, is an inadequate definition of innovation for
Magyari-Beck (1993) and Kaufmann (1993), as well as for this study. Vehar (2008)
43
analyzed scores of definitions for innovation to come up with a definition of innovation
as a product of a set of behaviors:
Innovation is a noun that describes the phenomenon of the introduction of a new
product that adds value. Implicit in this definition is engaging in a creative
thinking process to develop new concepts and implementation strategies, which
requires a multitude of skill-sets, and thus, usually, a team. Also required for
successful implementation is awareness of the internal and external press. (p. 6)
According to Kaufmann (1993), however, innovation is not a noun, but a verb: a process
that requires not only novelty, but also validity (conceptual, theoretical, expressive,
instrumental, and social, and understood as usefulness, see Vehar, 2008), increment
(purposeful and predictive change), and realization (adoption, implementation, and
diffusion) (Kaufmann, 1993).
As noted earlier, the term policy innovation is used in the literature (e.g., Berry &
Berry, 1990, 1992; Clark, 2000; Doig & Hargrove, 1987; Gray, 1994; Hays & Glick,
1997; Mintrom, 1997; Polsby, 1984; Savage, 1978; Welch & Thompson, 1980), but
without a standard definition. Using a combination of Vehar’s (2008) and Kaufmann’s
(1993) definitions of innovation, policy innovation, as defined for the purpose of this
study, is policy reform that offers new and useful alternatives to current policy problems
within a particular policy context. This definition differs from the use of the term in
published literature with regard to bureaucracy as used by Carpenter (2001) or patent
policy and practice as used by Jaffe (2000). According to Zhu (2013):
A policy innovation process mainly consists of four central stages, namely,
creation of an innovative idea, design of a program evolving from the innovative
44
idea, implementation of the new program, and institutionalization of the
innovative program to the point it is no longer considered an innovative idea. (p.
100)
The researcher argues that policy innovation should be pursued in order to realize reform
in the complex political context, and requires a policy entrepreneur to do so.
Solution: Development of
creative political leadership
via the role of the policy
entrepreneur
Problem: Low percentage of
innovative policy-making for
higher education (frequent
policy failures and policy
stagnation), Lost policy
reform opportunities
Need: Innovative and fiscally
sustainable higher education
policy innovation that breaks
through the incremental
policy-making process
Context: Complex and
competitive political arena
operating under a rational
market economic model
resulting in incremental
policy-making Consequences of Status
Quo: Intellectual classism and
the between the education/
economic haves and have-nots Figure 2. A representation of the need to foster policy innovation through the creative
political leadership of the policy entrepreneur in higher education.
Trends in Higher Education Policy Making in the United States
Higher education in the U.S. began as a private endeavor, designed to create
government and church leaders, shapers of generations to come. Higher education then
expanded to broader civic endeavors, medicine and the sciences, manufacturing,
agriculture, and teaching, all the while emphasizing a strong liberal arts core curriculum
(Cohen & Kisker, 2010). Higher education access expanded with the development of
America’s middle class. While K-12 education is obligatory in the United States, higher
education, on the other hand, is not, consigning it to the supply and demand functions of
45
the free market. “In the capitalist democracy of the United States, there is no unifying
national higher education government system stemming from the U.S. Constitution”
(Heller, 2009, p. 1). As a result, higher education is provided for primarily at the state
level.
That being said, expanding access to all that higher education has to offer has
been a consistent theme, making its way into the federal policy making arena. Further,
“federal policy has become a powerful force during the past few decades in shaping and
influencing the contexts of and incentives for state policy development of K-12 and
higher education” (St. John et al., 2013, p. xix). For instance, during the University
Transformation Era, spurred on by post-Civil War policies such as the Morrill Land
Grant acts of 1862 and 1890, public colleges and universities expanded the opportunity
for higher education to more citizens, enabling students in the lower and middle classes
to attend college along with society’s upper crust (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). Later policy
innovations such as such as the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 and the Higher
Education Act, a non-permanent act that requires constant reauthorization with changes
that occur with each iteration since its origination in 1965 (Heller, 2009) and out of which
came Guaranteed Student Loans and Pell Grants, expanded access even further. Most
notably, community colleges, which got their start as a local institutional policy
innovation, expanded into the state and federal higher education policy making arenas to
be one of the best examples of policy innovation in the country, as they afford the
opportunity for higher education to theoretically every citizen in the nation.
“As secondary school enrollments expanded rapidly in the early 1900s, the
demand for access to college grew apace” (Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p. 6). Universities
46
were slow to expand with the exception of such movement in a handful of states. It could
be said that it was the work of policy entrepreneurs who helped establish the unique
American community college. “Several prominent nineteenth- and early-twentiethcentury educators wanted the universities to abandon their freshman and sophomore
classes and relegate the function of teaching adolescents to a new set of institutions, to be
called junior colleges” (Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p. 7). Henry Tappan, William Mitchell,
and William Folwell, were such policy entrepreneurs, making their case for junior
colleges as early as 1851 (Cohen & Brawer, 2008). These men are examples of
successful policy entrepreneurs, and join the ranks of other community college policy
entrepreneurs who helped see their vision come to fruition such as William Rainey
Harper, Edmund J. James, David Starr Jordan, and Alexis Lange. Of course the
development of the community college has been rife with challenge, and the states have
their own unique political circumstances that shaped their college systems, some more
successfully than others. Still, the American community college remains a penultimate
example of policy innovation in American higher education. As new community college
models expand access not only to associate degrees, certificates, and community
education programs, but also now to bachelor degrees in select states across the nation:
Much like in the 1960s, this is an era of innovation: Community colleges are
changing as rapidly as an increasing number of them strive to “make good” on
their promise of access by implementing diverse (and sometimes controversial)
models of baccalaureate programming. (Floyd, 2005, p. 25)
Policy entrepreneurs working to increase access to the baccalaureate through community
colleges work in state higher education departments, community colleges, and state
47
legislatures. A survey of 500 college presidents by the Community College
Baccalaureate Association in 2003 found that those who advocate for this innovation in
higher education policy face issues of needing to help policy makers better understand
such programs, find funding support, and demonstrate need (Floyd, 2005).
Based on its origins, a market-driven approach to the provision of higher
education is inherent to the American system. “The history of higher education in
America would suggest, however, that public policy and public investment have been far
more influential than market forces in determining the nature of our colleges and
universities” (Duderstadt et al., 2002, p. 231). The Morrill Acts, GI Bill, Higher
Education Acts and reauthorizations, and Pell Grants are policies who’s “intent was to
promote equal liberty to differing individuals and groups and to enable citizens to
understand their responsibility as citizens of a free society” (Duderstadt et al., 2002, p.
231).
Cohen and Brawer (2008) and Duderstadt et al. (2002) have asserted that the
current context of higher education may require a renegotiation and reconsideration of the
role of higher education in society as it competes with other social investments as the
rapidly increasing technological advances we are experiencing in our daily lives
challenge our educational needs. As Duderstadt et al. (2002) concluded, “The American
experience suggests that the marketplace needs to be tempered by public policies” (p.
232), that is mitigated by policies that deliberately work to create more balanced
opportunities for our nation’s citizens. Deregulation has created opportunity for wellestablished institutions and upper class students. Zumeta et al. (2012) explained that,
“evidence over the past decade argues that is has not been equally beneficial for the state
48
itself and for the public interest, which is more than the sum total of institutional
interests” (p. 29). This then, as Keynes (1936) would agree, is the purpose of federal
higher education policy making, to temper market influences to ensure that the purpose of
higher education in America responds to the ever shifting economic and civic needs of
the American public as a whole.
State-level Higher Education Policy Making Approaches
While the federal legislative branch has intervened in higher education policy,
particularly financial, as noted earlier, “Historically states have taken a predominantly
institution-centered approach to policymaking, with heavy emphasis on maintaining the
existing assets of their higher education systems” (Paulson, 2007, p. 122). Paradoxically,
there has been significant higher education policy change in the United States in recent
decades, namely in higher education finance where at the state level, we see a shift from
public to private funding of higher education and at the federal level a shift from grants to
loans for student aid funding (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2004; Thelin, 2004). There are
conflicting points of view as to the source of this shift. For example, Callan and Finney
(1997) have asserted that the shift has occurred without deliberate policy planning and as
a short-term policy drift in response to state budget shortfalls, whereas Auxter (2010)
argued that deliberate fiscal policy from the Reagan Era created these shifts. Other
scholars have weighed in on this shift along the traditional conservative and liberal divide
in the United States, a divide that is the hallmark of American public policy making.
At the state level, higher education policy making is respectively as diverse as the
50 states and their varying demographics and economic drivers. While overall states
provided close to 54% of higher education revenues in 2010, the percentage by state
49
varies widely; from 20% in Massachusetts to 90% in New Mexico that same year
(Zumeta et al., 2012). State attitudes and policy toward higher education are definable be
region; Great Plains and Rocky Mountain West states tend to take a more laissez-faire
approach, Northeast and Upper Midwest states tend to plan and centralize policy, and
Southern and Lower Midwest states tend to rely on market forces (Zumeta et al., 2012).
Relevant Literature Underpinning the Study’s Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework model asserts that policy entrepreneurship is an
example of creative political leadership. It rests on the concept of creativity because of
policy entrepreneurs’ function as a creator of policy solutions, construction of meaning
around policy issues, and advocate for sustainable policy innovations.
The 4Ps of Creativity. The researcher postulates that the role of the policy
entrepreneur is essentially a creative one and involves being a conduit for knowledge that
helps to bridge gaps between creators and users of knowledge and between individuals on
opposing sides of social debate. Policy entrepreneurs work within a system that both
stifles and creates opportunities for policy innovation, therefore they must learn how to
find, create, and take advantage of windows of opportunity (Kingdon, 2011). To this
extent, the a priori conceptual framework for this study mirrors the 4Ps (Person, Product,
Process, and Press) typology from the academic discipline of creative studies created by
Mel Rhodes in 1961. Rhodes, a seminal author in the now well-established field of
creativity studies, constructed the transdisciplinary 4Ps model out of the varied
definitions of creativity that exist in the literature. Research that has employed Rhodes
4Ps model is generally found in creativity literature, which also expands into the
disciplines of business and education. The researcher had been introduced to Rhodes’
50
model in an early graduate program in Creativity and Change Leadership and the
International Center for the Studies in Creativity at Buffalo State College. Rhodes’
seminal model is validated as such by other major scholars in the creative studies
discipline including Isaksen et al., (1993), Rickards (1999), as well as Runco and Pritzker
(1999). Rhodes’ model is critical to this study of policy entrepreneurs advocating for
sustainable and innovative policy solutions to some of higher educations most pressing
problems. Further it has been shown in prior empirical research that “creativity—the
production of original ideas that are made useful—is central to innovation….Simply put,
without creativity there is no innovation. (Puccio, Cabra, Fox, & Cahen, 2010, p. 153)
As Rhodes (1961) aptly pointed out, creativity is often understood as just one part
of what is in reality a “complex, multifaceted phenomenon” (p. 306). In Rhodes’ (1961)
own words:
The word creativity is a noun naming the phenomenon in which a person
communicates a new concept (which is the product). Mental activity (or mental
process) is implicit in the definition, and of course no one could conceive of a
person living or operating in a vacuum, so the term press is also implicit. The
definition beds the questions are to how new the concept must be and to whom it
must be new. (p. 305).
Rhodes (1961) categorized the creative person with regard to their “personality,
intellect, temperament, physique, traits, habits, attitudes, self-concept, value systems
defense mechanisms, and behavior” (p. 307). Rhodes categorized creative process as
including “motivation, perception, learning, thinking, and communicating” (1961, p.
308). Motivation was understood by Rhodes as a cause for action; therefore a process,
51
versus a personal trait. Creative press was defined by Rhodes (1961) simply as, “the
relationship between human beings and their environment” (p. 308). Lastly, Rhodes
referred to creative product as ideas or thoughts with a degree of newness that are
communicated to others in material or tangible form, but Rhodes is quick to point out that
creative ideas cannot be so crazy as to not be useful.
Utilizing the creative political leadership and Rhodes’ (1961) 4Ps model as a
platform upon which the a priori conceptual framework of this study is placed, the
researcher positions policy entrepreneurs and their characteristics (leadership traits,
leadership skills, values, and motivations) in the type of creative person; policy
innovation in the type of creative product; behaviors (problem solving, networking,
strategizing) in the type of creative process, and the complex political context and
learning processes of the policy entrepreneur in the type of creative press.
Policy entrepreneur as creative person. The creative person component of the
framework is designed to explore the leadership traits and skills that help make policy
entrepreneurs successful (maintain longevity), as well as the values and motivations that
shape their work.
Leadership traits. Several theoretical models exist through which an analysis of
these policy entrepreneurship traits might be made. Stodgill’s (1948, 1974) two major
literature reviews of leadership trait studies created a paradigm shift that made trait
theory a thing of the past for many scholars of leadership, but this approach is still very
much relevant and in use (Northouse, 2013). Stodgill’s models include traits such as
intelligence, persistence, and sociability, among others. Stodgill’s perspective also
include traits that could be construed as learned, such as achievement and even influence,
52
suggesting a situational and relational aspect of leadership. This made Stodgill’s work
relevant to this study of policy entrepreneurs. Mann (1959) and Lord, DeVader, and
Alliger (1986) argue that leadership traits include intelligence, dominance, and
masculinity as perceived in the research. These models are not appropriate, however, as
they include an inherent gender bias.
As late as 2004, Zaccaro, Kemp and Bader updated the trait literature and added
social intelligence, self-monitoring, emotional stability, and other positive traits. Zaccaro
et al.’s approach was interesting to the researcher for two reasons. First, the traits in the
model appear to be those that would be useful in political leadership, such as
extroversion, social intelligence, and problem solving. Second, Zaccaro et al. then
moved on to leadership skills theory and helped bring together the notion of leadership
traits and skills under one model. As Northouse (2013) aptly noted, leadership trait
theory is easily criticized for not having yet resulted in a definitive list of traits. This
criticism of trait theory, however, may be due to the nature of leadership, or the
limitations of the study of leadership itself. The issue of context arises with regard to
situational leadership, and trait theory is not able to explain how leaders with a fixed set
of traits can be as effective given changes in their environment. That being said, this
study looked for leadership traits and then compared them to these select theoretical
models for best fit.
Leadership skills. A leadership skills approach that “focuses on skills and
abilities that can be learned and developed” (Northouse, 2007, p. 39) is an appropriate
beginning. Because personality traits, motivation, and relationships are important to this
analysis of policy entrepreneurship, the leadership model with the likely best fit may be
53
Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman’s (2000) leadership skills capability
model. Mumford et al.’s model combines problem solving and social judgment skills,
subject knowledge, cognitive ability, motivation, personality traits, and effective problem
solving and performance measures into a leadership skills model that is based on
individual capability and that is tied to individual performance (Mumford et al., 2000). It
is a unique and complex model that because of its use of open-ended questions in its
leadership assessment survey is also appropriate for qualitative assessments of individual
leadership (Northouse, 2007). Sternberg, Kaufman, and Pretz’s (2003) typology of
creative leadership that includes the conceptual identifiers of redefiners, forward
incrementers, advanced forward incrementers, redirectors, reinitiators, and synthesizers,
may also align well with an understanding of policy entrepreneurship as creative
educational leadership. More specifically:
Redefiners do what others have done but find a new rationale for it. Forward
incrementers move one step or a small number of steps beyond where other
leaders have gone. Advance forward incrementers move a large number of steps
beyond where others have gone, sometimes at their own peril….Redirectors steer
an organization in a new direction. Reconstructive redirectors move in a new
direction but use the past rather than the present as a starting point. Reinitiators
virtually start over from scratch….Synthesizers take what they believe are the best
ideas from different paradigms and put them together. (Sternberg et al., 2003, p.
457)
Policy entrepreneurs may be typified by one or more of Sternberg et al.’s creative
leadership styles, but past research has not attempted to view these policy actors through
54
this lens. While debate continues about the value of leadership trait theory over
leadership skill theory, in other words, are leaders born versus made (see Northouse
2013), the researcher believes that both have relevance and are compatible theoretical
frames of reference for understanding leadership. As a result, the researcher shaped the
first proposition, that policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate leadership traits and skills
that enable their success (longevity) in higher education policy making regarding policy
entrepreneur leadership to include both frames, to allow for the data collected and
analyzed to inform the results and is deliberately broad.
Values and motivation. Relying on Dewey’s (1939) theory of valuation, the
researcher also holds that the values held by policy entrepreneurs are shaped by their
experiences. In other words, policy entrepreneurs test their values by acting on them and
then based on the impact of their actions on broader society, judge whether or not, and
how, their values might need to be adjusted. Therefore, the work of policy entrepreneurs
in higher education policy making can be thought of in terms of educational leadership as
reflective practice in the policy world. Exactly how those values shape their work is
shared in Chapter 4. The researcher shaped the second proposition to examine how
values come in to play for the policy entrepreneur in higher education policy making.
Here again, the second proposition, that policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate knowledge
and use of a personal leadership values system, was designed to allow for the data
collected and analyzed to inform the results.
In terms of motivation, the researcher initially considered the data collected and
analyzed in this study through the lenses of achievement motivation theory (McClelland
et al., 1953) that states that humans have the need for power, association, and
55
achievement in their work; and Radoff’s (2011) game player motivations theory that
formulates four motivation quadrants in a schema devised to explain individual
motivation immersion (relating to experiences), cooperation (working together to build
things), achievement (mastering skills), and competition (looking to leaders).
McClelland et al.’s theory appeared to be a good fit with the concept of the policy
entrepreneur given that the work of the policy entrepreneur is goal-oriented, networkdependent, and involves influencing policy actors and the public. Radoff’s model, born
from the entertainment gaming industry and intended to help the industry design games
for long-term engagement, was based on theories of motivation of human behavior. It
was attractive for this study because it offers a way of categorizing motivation, but also
because the researcher had made an early assumption that economic game theory (also
known as decision theory) would be an applicable theoretical framework for
understanding the unit of analysis. As will be shown in Chapters 4 and 5, a different set
of motivation theory better fit the data. The researcher designed the third proposition,
that Policy entrepreneurs will fall within a game player motivation quadrant that helps
explain their motivation to foster policy innovation in higher education, around Radoff’s
model, although she continued to consider other models during the analysis phase as
well.
Policy innovation as creative product. The result of the efforts of the policy
entrepreneur who is focused by their values and motivation to make an intentionally
positive impact on higher education is another way of looking at a policy innovation,
which is policy reform that offers new and useful alternatives to current policy problems
at national and state levels within a particular policy context. It is the result of the efforts
56
of the policy entrepreneur who is focused by their values and motivation to make an
intentionally positive impact on higher education. It was not the intent of this study to
examine any single policy innovation, nor is this a study of policy outcomes or
consequences. The actual policy innovations represented by the participants are actually
irrelevant as they are not the unit of analysis for this study. Therefore, the proposition
initially considered for analysis was dropped. However, the researcher catalogued the
policy innovation foci of the participants to help provide a better understanding of policy
entrepreneurs’ work, context for analysis, and opportunities for future comparative
analysis based on type of policy innovation (see Table 4).
Policy entrepreneur behaviors as creative process. The literature asserts that
policy entrepreneurs aim to find solutions to complicated social problems, and even play
a role in identifying problems (Cobb & Elder, 1983; Roberts & King, 1991). They take
advantage of opportunities that arise in the political system; build relationships, networks,
and coalitions to build acceptance for their policy solutions; and plan, strategize, and
make decisions based on imperfect information (Kingdon, 1984, 2011; Mintrom, 1997;
Mintrom & Norman, 2009; Polsby, 1984). These functions are not an exhaustive list and
the researcher asserts that these policy entrepreneurial activities can be categorized in
broader terms: creative problem solving, strategizing, strategic information
disseminating, and social networking. Of these categories various activities and
behaviors can be organized.
Creative problem solving. Creative problem solving is a change process model
and set of techniques that help individual’s create and implement solutions by
overcoming perceived barriers. The CPS process includes the following components:
57
fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding, acceptance-finding (Parnes,
1981); later mess-finding was added as an initial step (Isaksen & Treffinger, 1985).
These components or stages are not necessarily linear, but can be and the complexity of
the problem can require movement back and forth across the model. “Creative Problem
Solving (CPS) is a broadly applicable process that provides an organizing framework for
specific tools to help you design and develop new and useful outcomes” (Isaksen, Dorval,
& Treffinger, 1994, p. 31). CPS is an operational model for use when creativity is
required to address a particular problem or set of problems (Noller & Isaksen, 1999).
Critical to the understanding of the researcher’s inclusion of CPS in the conceptual
framework:
A problem for CPS is not merely a puzzle, for which there already exists a novel
(or clever, interesting, or even obvious) solution and which only might be termed
a problem if, and only if, the person does not already know that solution. In
addition…a problem should not only be viewed negatively, as an obstacle, with
something lacking or deficient, or as something wrong that must be corrected.
Problems for CPS were described as opportunities and challenges for successful
change and constructive action….Thus a problem might be any important, openended, and ambiguous situation for which one wants and needs new options and a
plan for carrying a solution successfully. (Isaksen & Treffinger as paraphrased by
Treffinger, Isaksen, & Dorval, 1999, p. 116)
The parallel to this study is the type of problems that policy entrepreneurs tackle
in their work: important—potentially impacting millions of citizens; complex and
challenging—layered with multiple factors impacting problem identification, influences,
58
potential solutions and not readily solved. Policy entrepreneurs accept the challenge of
identifying and solving such problems and search for opportunities to improve society; in
the higher education policy making arena these opportunities have the potential to
transform higher education systemically and in ways that address today’s major policy
foci such as access, affordability, and accountability. Most notably, Roberts and King
(1991) identified problem solving functions of policy entrepreneurs—including
generating ideas, defining problems, selecting solutions, identifying alternatives, and
acceptance finding which they refer to as mobilization and execution activities—but did
not employ the language of CPS theory that the researcher identified for this study.
It is somewhat parallel to the traditional, stages model of the policy process. As
described by Peters (2010), the stages model that begins with agenda setting and moves
into policy formulation, legitimation, implementation, and evaluation stages, is an
approach for which exists “the largest single body of research…on the policy process” (p.
46). This model has been criticized by Sabatier (2007), however, for having “outlived its
usefulness” (p. 7) due to its lack of causal drivers to guide research on policy between
stages and its inaccuracy relative to actual policy formulation. In other words, it’s an
ideal process model, but not always demonstrative of real policy making (Kingdon, 2011;
Peters, 2010; Sabatier 2007). Sabatier went further to assert that the model is an
oversimplification that does not reflect the multiple and simultaneous policy cycles that
drive policy change. Kingdon (2011) agreed. On the other hand, Peters (2010) asserted
that the stage model still sets an appropriate benchmark for examining the policy process
which is an acceptable limitation for this study given that the unit of analysis is the policy
entrepreneur how operates through the policy stages, and not the policy process itself.
59
Roberts and King’s (1991) study of policy entrepreneurs also demonstrated that policy
entrepreneurs do in fact perform functions relevant to the stage model such as activities
related to agenda setting, policy formulation, and policy legitimization.
Peters (2010) acknowledged that the policy process is not as linear as the stage
model appears to be. It does not take into account that policy builds off of the past and
existing coalitions and power struggles, in other words, conflict in the policy making
process; nor does it explain choice or decision-making. Regardless, the model’s value is
as “very useful heuristic device for mapping the route that policies take from being just a
good idea to being a functioning program” (Peters, 2010, p. 48).
The parallels between CPS and the stages model of the policy process are
demonstrated in Figure 2. It is not intended to superimpose one model over the other
stage by stage, but to show theoretically where behaviors inherent to each stage of the
CPS process generally may apply to the different stages of the policy process. Most CPS
activities appear to align with the agenda-setting phase, which is a major function of the
policy entrepreneur. Another phase in which CPS activities appear to align well is the
policy formulation stage where policy entrepreneurs are working to identify and refine
policy solutions. Finally, there appears to be alignment between models in the
legitimation stage. One major difference between models is that CPS does not have
implementation and evaluation stages per se, but problem-finding and data-finding
activities may align with evaluation as new policy issues are identified based on the
impact of policy implementation, and so restarts the cycle. Empirical validation of these
parallels is out of scope of this study, but the overlap is validated by extant literature
(Kingdon, 1984, 2011; Roberts & King, 1991) and can contribute to the literature in
60
future research. The fourth proposition, that policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate use of
techniques that align to stages in the CPS model in their policy solution formulation,
advocacy, and implementation activities, developed out of the parallels the researcher
identified between CPS and the stages model of the policy process and was refined as
follows.
Agenda Setting
CPS: Mess-Finding
Problem-Finding
Data-Finding
Evaluation
CPS: Problem-Finding
Data-Finding
Formulation
CPS: Idea-Finding
Solution-Finding
Legitimation
CPS: AcceptanceFinding
Implementation
Figure 3. Parallels between Creative Problem Solving and the stage model of the policy
process. Policy process stages are indicated in bold font and beneath each are listed the
corresponding CPS stage where applicable.
Use of strategy. Economic game theory is not well understood or used in the
context of higher education policy making. “Game theory is a study of interdependence.
It studies interaction among a group of players who make rational choices based on a
strategic analysis of what others in the group might do” (Dutta, 1999, p. 12). It based on
the mathematical analysis of strategies, relationships, interactions, rationality, decisions,
61
and human behavior in the context of competitive or cooperative situations with varying
levels of information available to the participants, also known as players (Dutta, 1999).
Given that policy making is not often a rational process (Kingdon, 2011; Sabatier,
2010), one might question the inclusion of game theory in a study of policy
entrepreneurship. Economic game theory has a wide variety of applications, among
which includes higher education policy making. Dutta (1999) explains that economic
game theory analysis can help determine if a particular public policy is cost-effective.
Dixit and Nalebuff (1991) have explained how economic game theory is simply a
scientific approach to understanding how humans strategize, or make decisions given
anticipated resistance from opposing groups or individuals. Policy entrepreneurs work in
an environment that is complex in nature, with unknown variables that have the potential
to stall or dismantle their initiatives (Mintrom, 2000). Therefore, how well policy
entrepreneurs understand and use strategy is very likely a factor in how, and how well,
they perform their work.
A rare application of game theory in higher education by Hussain (1974)
examined the use of simulation gaming in resource development, but the focus was not
on policy entrepreneurship, nor did it explore economic game theory in any meaningful
way. Simulation gaming is not the same as predictive decision mapping nor is it wholly
based on principles of economic game theory. Decision mapping is not unknown in
policy studies and political science literature (Dixit & Nalebuff; 1991; Dutta, 1999;
Peters, 2010; Watson, 2008), but has yet to permeate higher education policy literature in
any direct way.
62
Due to its rationality, game theory might be limiting in this study, and there are
there approaches to understanding strategy, including strategic leadership. Several
authors have models of strategic leadership in literature that ranges from organizational
management to higher education. Hughes and Colarelli Beatty (2003) asserted that
strategic leadership entails being a change driver with a broad, future-minded
perspective. Shoemaker, Krupp, and Howland (2013) mentioned essential skills:
anticipating threats and opportunities, challenging the status quo, interpreting
information, making tough decisions, aligning resources and buy-in, and developing a
learning organization. Pisapia (2009) offered a more flexible definition applicable to
more than just organizational managers: “the ability (as well as the wisdom) to make
consequential decisions about ends, actions and tactics in ambiguous environments” (p.
7). Pisapia (2009) asserted that strategic leaders have six habits: artistry (implies
flexibility and adaptability), agility (implies reflection, reframing and systems thinking),
anticipating (both threats and opportunities, and includes creating opportunities which he
calls lighting the way and identifying windows of opportunity, which he calls running to
daylight), articulating (vision and values), aligning (bonding, bridging, and bartering
toward mobilization), and assuring (reinforcing behaviors). The researcher formulated
the fifth proposition for examination in this study based on an assumption that the theory
would prove more relevant that strategic leadership, that policy entrepreneurs will
demonstrate knowledge and use of strategies in their work that can be understood through
basic principles of economic game theory but data analysis looked for signs of both
economic game theory and strategic leadership.
63
Information dissemination. Information is critical to policy formation and
advocacy activities. Information comes in many forms: testimonial, story, analogy, data,
and even anecdotal evidence. While not always the final arbiter of policy decisions,
presenting policy solutions without data is not acceptable to most legislators, government
executives, and issues stakeholders. Believability of data, or credibility, is another matter
since data, and information in general, are easily manipulated. This study proposes that
how policy entrepreneurs utilize information in their work is central to their success and
that there are specific methods that they employ (see Roberts & King, 1991).
Nutley, Walter, and Davies (2008), discuss three ways that information impacts
policy processes: instrumentally, conceptually, and tactically. Instrumental use of
information, or research, “involves the direct application of research to policy and
practice decisions” (Nutley et al., 2008, p. 34). Conceptual use of information is broader
and is understood in terms of “impact on the knowledge, understanding and attitudes of
policy makers and practitioners” (Nutley et al., 2008, p. 36). Tactical use of information
reflects “strategic types of research use” (Nutley et al., 2008, p. 40). A final
consideration of research usage in policy is the way in which the complex political
environment impacts information access and how values and selection may impact
information usage (Nutley et al., 2008). In other words, how policy entrepreneurs filter
bad or outdated information, or choose to highlight certain information, may also be
critical to their success. Nutley et al. were influenced by Weiss’s (1979) literature review
that revealed several models for information usage in public policy including knowledgedriven, problem solving, interactive, political, tactical, enlightenment, and intellectual
enterprise. Out of this literature the researcher formulated the sixth proposition of this
64
study, that policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate use of a variety of methods to collect
and disseminate information in various policy advocacy activities, that was also designed
to allow for the data collected and analyzed to inform the results and is deliberately
broad.
Use of social networks. The application of social networking theory in American
policy making and leadership in general is quite clear; networking is a key component.
The failure of policy entrepreneurs to understand the linkages among social structures
and policy actors surrounding a policy innovation rather than their attributes can leave
them vulnerable to political manipulation, therefore social networking is critical to the
work of the policy entrepreneur. In policy studies this is often described as advocacy
coalitions, which are networks of policy actors bounded by a policy issue, as well as
geography, in what is defined as a policy subsystem (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988).
In leadership, the leader must be able see the ties among policy actors both near and far if
they are to have a chance to develop the social capital necessary to shape policy
innovations.
Social network theory was established in the field of mathematics by scholars
analyzing social problems and has recently transitioned into the social sciences (Borgatti
& Ofem, 2010). Knoke & Yang (2008) define a social network as “a structure composed
of a set of actors, some of whose members are connected by a set of one or more
relations” (p. 8), similar to Daly’s (2010) definition: “A network is a group of actors who
are connected to one another through a set of different relations or ties” (p. 4). “That
knowledge may be used to develop and engage a change strategy” (Daly, 2010, p. 4).
Uncovering how policy entrepreneurs use their social networks in the development of
65
strategy in advocating for their policy ideas is relevant to the study of policy
entrepreneurship in higher education as “social relationships loom large in portraits of
educational change” (Daly, 2010, xi), therefore the seventh proposition emerged, that
policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate development of networks of relationships and use
of their social networks to advance their ideas.
Creative press. Creative press is comprised of external and internal press, or
influences, that factor into the work of the policy entrepreneur. The skills, strategies, and
ultimately the impact and longevity of policy entrepreneurs are shaped by the complex
political system within which they work, external press; and also by their personal
learning experiences and learning processes that shaped their development, internal press.
Creative press can challenge the individual to the point of stifling their creativity and
innovation and it can provide just the right amount of stress to create an environment
conducive to creativity and innovation (Rhodes, 1961), and relevant this study, policy
innovation. This is particularly relevant to creative thinking in group settings. Given that
policy entrepreneurs do not work in a vacuum nor do they realize policy innovation
without the input, support, and cooperation of many others in their policy subsystem
(Sabatier & Jenkins, 1988), the success of the creative policy entrepreneur logically
should be a product of environment, or press.
Creative knowledge environments (CKEs) are those environments, contexts and
surroundings the characteristics of which are such that they exert a positive
influence on human beings engaged in creative work aiming to produce new
knowledge or innovations, whether they work individually or in teams, within a
66
single organization or in collaboration with others. (Hemlin, Allwood, & Martin,
2004, p. 1)
This definition of the creative knowledge environment acknowledges that there exists a
need for attention to the potential impact of creative press, or lack thereof, on the work
and success of the policy entrepreneur.
Complex political context. The complex political context within which policy
entrepreneurs operate is a factor that helps to create barriers to policy innovation.
Lindblom and Woodhouse (1993) place the work of policy entrepreneurs in the context
of the structural, technical, economic, or contextual barriers they may face within the
incremental political context of the United States. Kingdon (2011) stated that, “much of
the [policy] process is governed by large events and structures not under any individual’s
control” (p. 225). He suggests that complexity theory and even chaos theory apply to the
process model from which his studies of policy entrepreneurship have been drawn: the
garbage can model, originally developed by Cohen, March, and Olsen (1972) in which
they described organizations in policy environments as organized anarchies. Variety
amongst the participants and a lack of clarity around the traits and skills that help policy
entrepreneurs succeed (achieve longevity) given the complex, uncertain, and everchanging contextual factors of their work, helped to design the eight proposition, that
policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate use of their traits and skills to respond to the
pressures and challenges of the complex political context in which they operate, allowing
for the data collected and analyzed to inform the results and is, therefore, deliberately
broad.
67
Learning processes. Policy entrepreneurs must develop skills and learn to take
advantage of their leadership traits, but it is not known how this occurs. Generally,
studies of policy entrepreneurs take a case study approach and examine the behaviors of
the policy entrepreneur in context of a policy issue or innovation, or focus on the policy
process (Mintrom, 2013). The researcher was curious about how policy entrepreneurs
developed the skills that make them successful, that is give them career longevity by
resulting in policy innovation, and scanned the literature on adult development for
possible theoretical explanations.
One possible model is Jarvis’ (2006) comprehensive learning process model that
includes one’s background, sensory input, emotions, action, and reflection. The
researcher considered this model during analysis because the components of personal
history and reflection were of particular interest. Do policy entrepreneurs reflect upon
their actions as a learning method? And if so, is the reflection purposeful? A more postmodern approach to the learning process that takes context, contradiction, and relativism
into consideration is Usher, Bryant, and Johnson’s (1997) experiential learning map.
According to Usher et al. (1997), learning occurs along different points of intersecting
continuums that include autonomy versus adaptation and expression versus application.
These continuums create theoretical quadrants in a pictograph of the model, two of four
which are of interest to this study: vocational practices, where learning is about flexibility
and adaptation to social circumstances; and critical practices, where learning is
understood as a political process. The researcher considered if the data collected would
enable mapping of the participants on Usher et al.’s model.
68
Other learning processes include coaching, mentoring, and apprenticeship models,
all of which support learners through guided experience, versus trial and error.
According to Fenwick (2003), being coached generally refers to acquiring a specific
skillset while mentoring generally refers to broader guidance. Reflection-on-action
(Schön, 1987; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007)—that is, reflective practice
post experience, and reflection-in-action (Schön, 1987)—that is, reflective practice
during experience, through guided experiences under the tutelage of a coach or mentor,
may help develop policy entrepreneurs. Brant, Farmer, and Buckmaster’s (1993) fivephase model of cognitive apprenticeship, therefore, will also be considered for fit in this
study as well. The model is based on their study of apprenticeships in several professions
and includes: (a) modeling, (b) approximating, (c) fading, (d) self-directed learning, and
(e) generalizing. Given that studies to date have not yet considered the learning and
development of the policy entrepreneur in higher education, the ninth and final
proposition, that policy entrepreneurs develop proficiency in their traits and skills through
a combination of learning processes, both deliberate and unintentional, in response to the
pressures and challenges of the political environment, sought to do so and was, therefore,
designed to allow for the data collected and analyzed to inform the results and so too is
deliberately broad.
Chapter Summary
The need for the understanding of who the policy entrepreneur is in the higher
education policy making arena in the United States, and how they operate, is critical to
the understanding of how educational leaders can more effectively shape education
policy to fulfill the educational and economic needs of our nation. Policy entrepreneurs
69
operate in a complex and somewhat haphazard environment where information is
imprecise and a multitude of factors complicate and slow-down the policy making
process. Still, policy entrepreneurs can be identified from within the fray as leaders who
stand out from among the throngs of groups and individuals who mingle in the arena at
state and national levels and add noise. The debate over the value of higher education as
personal gain or public good that has mirrored the major theoretical frames of the fresh
discipline of policy studies only a few decades old, will always shape the context within
which the policy entrepreneur must work. By merging new approaches to understanding
policy making in the capitalist democracy of the United States with concepts from the
also fresh disciplines of creative studies, out of which creative leadership and innovation
literature was born, and the discipline of higher education leadership, the researcher aims
to contribute to the knowledge of this critical role in higher education policy making that
can be found at institutional, state, and national levels. In the next chapter, the
methodology upon which the study rests is presented.
70
III. METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
The conceptual framework detailing the propositions that this qualitative
descriptive study examined was developed in Chapter 1 in the context of the questions
concerning the unique and significant role of the policy entrepreneur in higher education
policy making in the United States. Chapter 2 elaborated on the contextual political
background of higher education policy making in the United States, synthesized the
major policy theories out of which policy entrepreneurship emerged, and elaborated on
theoretical concepts upon which this study was based including political and educational
leadership, creativity and innovation, and policy innovation. This chapter describes the
methodological approach that shaped the research design used to address the purpose of
this study. It also serves as a map of the study as it unfolded including sampling plan,
data collection, and data analysis processes as it evolved true to the nature of qualitative
research.
It is important to note that this point that the terms methodology and methods are
deliberately employed as distinct terms. They are often used interchangeably in research,
but “the former refers to philosophy and the latter refers to technical procedures applied
to conduct research” (McGregor & Murnane, 2010, p. 419). To further clarify the
distinction between methodology and methods, Kinash (2010) offered that: “The methods
are the techniques or processes we use to conduct our research. The methodology is the
discipline, or body of knowledge, that utilizes these methods” (p. 3). This chapter,
therefore, will explain how the study design actually emerged from the proposal plan
71
based on early data collection and analysis. In doing so, it sheds light on the
methodology, methods, and also the developmental learning process of the researcher
herself, thereby adding to the credibility of this study.
Evolution of the Research Design
Based on Lowi’s 1964 assertion of the variance among policy making arenas, the
researcher holds that policy making in the higher education arena is unique and unlike
that of other subject matter arenas. This shapes policy subsystems (Sabatier, 2007), or
policy networks and they form, dissolve, and reform along with changes in national
context (Adams & Kriesi, 2007) as well as with the specific policy issue and types of
policy (Schneider, 1992). However, there is no one higher education policy making
arena in the United States, there are many; at the institutional, state, and national levels.
This understanding set the stage for an initial research design that evolved as data was
collected.
The first step in the evolution of the research design is related to the fact that
individuals who work in the various policy arenas across higher education often cross
boundaries throughout their career. The researcher hoped to gain a highly detailed
portrait of the policy entrepreneur in higher education, but from a solely national
perspective. Fearing a lack of access to participants, the researcher widened the approach
to the state level as well and cast a wide net for data collection and analysis with a bold
mixed method design. From this early recruitment phase of data collection, it then
became quickly apparent that not only were ample participants accessible at the state
level but that the quantity of data being collected was becoming quite large. However,
the data was not of a type amenable to a non-experimental, exploratory, sequential mixed
72
methodology research design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Johnson et al., 2007) as
was originally proposed. By the early analysis phase, the researcher began to consider
shifting away from quantitative analyses.
The second evolutionary step away from the initial research design was based on
the nature of the data collected. The narrative data being returned from the interviews
were thick and rich in detail of characteristics, skills, and behaviors employed by the
participant, yet the range of concepts expanded far beyond the researcher’s expectations.
In other words, there did not emerge a tight, concise, and limited set of descriptors to
describe the role of the policy entrepreneur. The researcher began to consider that an
intended content analysis and dummy coding of a tight set of variables for statistical
analysis would no longer be possible. Further, due to participant availability limiting the
length of interviews, stories that might have elucidated decision-making processes were
only offered by two participants, thereby making decision-tree analysis unfeasible.
Lastly, the researcher believes that both time limitations and a lack of trust inhibited
participants sharing more details about their networks, which hampered social network
analysis on an individual level.
The third and final evolution in the research design occurred as the researcher
uncovered that the level of experience, longevity, and consequently the success of the
overall group of participants was highly skewed toward master policy entrepreneurs.
This was a direct result of the chain referral sampling approach used to identify and
recruit participants. While a small number of participants could be typified as emergent
(n = 2), and a few more as established (n = 4), the majority (n = 17) was at the mastery
level. This inhibited comparative statistical analysis of the participants’ level of success
73
and longevity. Ultimately the evolution of the research design led the researcher from an
initial consideration of a mixed methods design to a purely qualitative case study design
that still enabled the researcher to answer the research questions, examine the
propositions, and make best use of the data collected.
Use of bricolage in research design. Bricolage involves combining diverse
approaches to a research question (interdisciplinarity) resulting in a depth of analysis not
otherwise achievable (Kincheloe, 2001). The original plan was to employ
methodological and theoretical bricolage, terms categorized by Denzin and Lincoln
(2000) (as cited in Kincheloe, 2005) in an effort to understand the policy entrepreneur
through multiple methods of inquiry. “Developing the bricolage is a key strategy in the
development of rigorous and innovative research” (Kincheloe, 2001, p. 690). The
multifaceted conceptual framework and its dependent propositions demonstrate the early
use of bricolage in this study. Bricolage is based on emergent design (Rogers, 2012) and
it was this approach that also enabled the evolution of the research design itself, which
narrowed based on the data collected to use of primarily theoretical bricolage.
“Theoretical bricoleurs, for Denzin and Lincoln, work through, and between, multiple
theoretical paradigms….From varied, sometimes conflicting, perspectives, a theoretical
bricoleur performs multiple readings on an artifact, text, or phenomenon” (Rogers, 2012,
p. 6).
The result of the evolution of the research design, therefore, was a descriptive,
revelatory, single-case study approach (Yin, 1994), selected from the postpositivist
paradigm (Creswell, 2007). Postpositivism was “A case study is an empirical inquiry
that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when
74
the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994,
p. 13). Case study also allows for study of a topic with many variables, relies upon
multiplies data sources, and “benefits from the prior development of theoretical
propositions to guide data collection and analysis” (Yin, 1994, p. 13) which made it a
natural fit for this study with its complex conceptual framework.
For case studies, five components of a research design are especially important: 1.
a study’s questions; 2. its propositions, if any; 3. its unit(s) of analysis; 4. the logic
linking the data to the propositions; and 5. the criteria for interpreting the
findings. (Yin, 2003, p. 21)
Revelatory case studies allow the researcher to examine phenomenon not already
well investigated, also appropriate for this study of policy entrepreneurs in higher
education, which does not come from a rich literature (Yin, 1994). The research design is
demonstrated in Figure 4.
75
Data Collection Data Analysis Data Interpretation Document Review and Interviews Modi9ied Analytic Induction and Multi-‐
layered Qualitative Coding Examination of Components of Conceptual Framework Descriptive Portrait of the Successful Policy Entrepreneur in Higher Education Development of Constructs and Recommendations for Future Research Figure 4. A representation of the case study research design for this study.
Purpose and Research Questions
Once again, the purpose of this study was to create a descriptive portrait of the
successful policy entrepreneur in the national and state higher education policy making
arenas by (a) identifying exemplar policy entrepreneurs who are advocating for, or who
have advocated for, higher education policy innovations in varying levels of policy
arenas in the United States; (b) cataloging their characteristics and behaviors; (c)
determining how they developed the qualities that make, or made, them successful
(lasting in the field); (d) identifying strategies they employ to overcome barriers to policy
innovation; (e) and helping to validate an original theoretical framework for
understanding the policy entrepreneur as creative political leader for use in future
research. The study was guided by the following research questions:
76
Primary research question. What can be learned from successful policy
entrepreneurs who advocate for, or who have advocated for, sustainable higher education
policy innovation in the United States?
Sub-research questions.
a. What is their role in higher education policy making?
b. What are their characteristics (i.e., leadership traits, leadership skills, values, and
motivation) and behaviors (i.a., problem solving, networking, date use and
dissemination)?
c. What strategies do they use to overcome barriers to higher education policy
innovation?
d. How do they gain and develop the skills and strategies needed to be successful?
Setting
The research setting included the national and state higher education policy
arenas, non-physical “locations” that radiate outward from Washington, DC and include
state capitals, policy centers, local institutions of higher education (public, private, forprofit), and other locations that house professional associations and think tanks around
the nation. This can also be understood as the higher education policy subsystem
(Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988).
Unit of Analysis and Participants
“Development of concepts which help us to understand social phenomena in
natural (rather than experimental) settings, giving due emphasis to the meanings,
experiences, and views of the participants” (Pope & Mays, 1995, p. 44) is one aim of
empirical qualitative research. It is the social phenomenon of the policy entrepreneur
77
around which this study was designed and carried out, it is not however, a
phenomenological study as the lived experience of the policy entrepreneur was not the
focus of the research questions, but rather what characteristics and traits are unique to the
policy entrepreneur, and how do they operate in the context of higher education policy
making in the United States.
Policy entrepreneurs currently working in national and state levels of higher
education policy making, therefore, were both the unit of analysis and participants of this
study. The focus of the study was on the traits, skills, behaviors, values and motivations
of this unique group of policy actors. How to identify participants was an early challenge
as the number of policy entrepreneurs working in the higher education domain is
unknown and difficult to estimate due to a lack of clarity, understanding, and use of the
term in some academic and policy circles. This led the researcher to conclude that
refining the definition as was attempted in Chapter 1, would be critical to this study.
Methods and Procedures
Sampling. Regarding sample size, “the selection of the number of the
replications depends on the certainty you want to have about your multiple-case results”
(Yin, 2003, p. 51) and is dependent upon the complexity of the theoretical framework. A
study sample size of 24 participants was approved by Florida Atlantic University’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB). The researcher employed a purposeful sampling
approach using chain-referral technique (Erickson, 1979), also known as snowball
sampling, and cold contact emails beginning with participants with whom the researcher
had some minimal, but distant, professional relationships, in order to gain permission to
perform what would ultimately be 23 individual interviews with policy entrepreneurs
78
identified through a phase 1 document review process and vetted by a panel of policy
experts from within and without the researcher’s institution.
Typical purposeful sampling is employed when “you choose particular subjects to
include because they are believed to facilitate the expansion of the developing theory”
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 73). Chain-referral sampling is more useful when studying a
population that is difficult to access and is employed by participants recommending other
potential participants in their social networks that might fit the criteria of the study
(Erickson, 1979). It is an efficient sampling method that helped target participants for
this study that would otherwise be inaccessible to the researcher due to her role as an
outsider to the higher education policy making community. Further, given that time is a
factor in terms of creative idea acceptance in public life (Rhodes, 1961), creative
leadership in governance is not always readily identified. Referral sampling enabled
creative political leaders to identify each other for the purpose of this study.
Thirteen participants were acquired by “cold call” emails, and another 10
participants were acquired through chain-referrals. The sampling was in no way
exhaustive—saturation was not achieved—suggesting the potential for larger, survey
method use in future research. Several potential participants suggested by consenting
participants were not contacted due to the delimitations of the study; IRB approval was
capped at 24 participants and within this limit 23 agreed to participate. Some potential
participants declined, did not respond, or responded but ultimately were not willing or
able to participate during the data collection phase of this study that ran from April to
October of 2014.
79
Selection criteria. The sample included low-, mid-, and high-level policy
entrepreneurs who work in a variety of government offices, professional associations, and
private sector agencies who operate within the research setting. Selection criteria for
participation included policy entrepreneurs currently working in the higher education
policy making arena at national or state levels with at least three years of experience that
are focused, or have focused, on innovative (new and useful) policy ideas and solutions.
IRB approval included the option to identify participants with their consent. As a result,
two participants’ data were blinded and were assigned pseudonyms; the remaining 21
participants were not blinded. 12 men and 11 women were interviewed. Data on
race/ethnicity and age were not collected, but it can be assumed by public document
review that the large majority of participants are White (n = 18), a small number are
persons of color (n = 4), and one participant’s race/ethnicity could not be identified.
Without having investigated, the researcher cannot assert that they may not be African
American, Caribbean American, bi- or multi-racial, or White Hispanic. The researcher
did actively recruit Hispanic American and Asian American participants, but those
identified for this study were either unavailable to participate or did not respond to
requests to participate. Native American potential participants were not identified for this
study.
Recruitment. Participants were recruited via email and asked for their
willingness to participate in a face-to-face, telephone, or videoconference interview
intended to last about 45 minutes. All participants signed and returned IRB-approved
interview consent forms via email or post along with their CV, resume, or a biography, or
a link to this information online. Employing chain-referral technique, at the conclusion
80
of the interview participants were asked to recommend other potential participants who
might fit the criteria of the study to help widen the pool.
Data collection. Data collection for this study was designed to triangulate
sources to increase strength of the data interpretation and findings. Data were collected
between April and October 2014 in the following ways: first, public documents were
collected to help identify potential participants; second, interviews were performed with
23 consenting participants to gather the majority of the data; third, participant resumes,
curriculum vitae, and/or biographies were collected to help answer the research questions
and corroborate data collected during interviews; and fourth, public documents were
again retrieved in order to further corroborate data and help refine the interpretation.
Below, each aspect of the data collection process is provided in detail.
Data sources and instruments. Public documents, interviews, and participant
bios/curriculum vitae/resumes were the data sources for this study. Case studies need not
always include direct, detailed observations as a source of evidence (Yin, 2003) which
would not have been possible for the researcher to perform given her role as a policy
outsider located outside of the boundaries of the research setting.
Public documents. Document collection was employed twice in this study; first to
help identify potential interview participants, and second to help triangulate interview
data (Merriam, 2009) by verifying participant comments and providing contextual data
regarding the political environment, or press, tying the data back to the conceptual
framework of this study. Combined key word searches for innovation, policy innovation,
higher education reform, policy entrepreneur, policy advocate, and a number of hot topics
in higher education such as accountability, Achieving the Dream, competency-based
81
education, completion, credits for work, for-profits, immigrant students, online education,
Pell Grants, performance-based funding, student aid, student retention, student success,
and others were searched on the Federal Register, GovTrack.us, U.S. Government
Printing Office online clearinghouse, think tank and lobbying group websites,
professional association websites, and the FAU Libraries. This led to the creation of an
initial list of 125 potential participants that were vetted with a three-member panel of
academic policy experts two of whom work outside of the researcher’s institution. The
list was further vetted by two members of the researcher’s dissertation committee who
are also policy experts. Subtractions and additions were made to the list as a result of this
review.
The second phase of document collection occurred in tandem the interview
process. After each interview, white papers, policy briefs, books, peer-reviewed journal
articles, and online and print newspaper and magazine articles covering stories about
each participants’ innovative policy solutions, challenges, and context were collected
(from the same sources listed above) and analyzed. Trends in public opinion may also be
a contextual factor that effects the work and/or successful of a policy entrepreneur.
“Mass communication materials are especially good sources for dealing with questions
about some aspect of society at a given time…or for tracking cultural change and trends”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 144).
Interviews. “The interview is used to gather descriptive data in the subjects’ own
words so that the researcher can develop insights on how subjects interpret some piece of
the world” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 103). Kingdon (1984) reported the need to
perform a series of short interviews with legislators in his study of congressional voting
82
indicating that his interviews ran between 10 and 15 minutes to accommodate legislators’
hectic schedules. While this provided adequate data for Kingdon’s policy study, this
study aimed to collect richer data via a lengthier and more comprehensive interview.
Interviews in this study varied from 30 to 75 minutes based on the availability of the
participant.
The semi-structured interview protocol was designed with open-ended questions
and probes to dig for thick, rich data in an effort to glean the most data in an efficient
manner, given the narrow availability of participants. The initial protocol was piloted
with former and current policy actors at the local (local institution) and state (Florida)
policy levels. Upon revision it was re-piloted at the state policy making level in
Pennsylvania and Florida with two more policy actors to test for content validity of
questions, some of which were then revised and others added since the initial pilot.
Face-to-face interviews were preferred by the researcher to collect as much data,
both verbal and non-verbal as possible, however, only one such interview was conducted
due to the limitations of the researcher that inhibited travel and the willingness and
comfort of tele/video communications by the participants. One email interview was
collected as well at the request of the participant. The researcher acknowledges this
limitation in that, “An email interview may have the same verbal content as one
conducted in person, but it lacks inflection, body language, and the many other nuances
that often communicate more vividly than words” (Merriam, 2009, p. 158). The rest of
the interviews were conducted via videoconference (two via FaceTime and three via
Skype) or telephone (n = 15). All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim in a
two-step process that involved a commercial transcription service followed by a
83
comprehensive, manual, line-by-line review against the recording by the researcher to
make any manual corrections needed for accuracy and to compensate for some issues
with audio-recording clarity.
The researcher also conducted interviewer debrief interviews with a peer in the
same academic department who is familiar with the language of the study as well as the
research methods, to help eliminate bias, clarify findings, identify problems, and refine
the role of the researcher thereby enhancing the meaning-making aspect of the interviews
from the raw data (Onwuegbuzie, Leech, & Collins, 2010). In total, 721 pages of
interview transcription, 14 curriculum vitae or resumes, nine biographies, and 75 public
documents that included research studies, white papers, policy briefs, legislation,
government documents, annual reports, magazine articles, newspaper articles, press
releases, editorials, and blog posts were collected for analysis and triangulation (see
Appendix H for a list of the documents reviewed in this study).
Data Analysis. Data analysis began as early as the participant recruitment phase
once IRB approval was received from Florida Atlantic University. The process of
analyzing data was iterative and modified analytic induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007)
was employed to help refine the conceptual framework as data were collected. Below,
the data analysis method employed with each data source collected is detailed.
Data sources and instruments analysis. Modified analytic induction enables the
development and testing of theory (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), which was a good fit for
this study, the purpose of which is to develop constructs for future validation and use in
research regarding the role and effectiveness of policy entrepreneurs in higher education.
Modified analytic induction is particularly useful in studies where “some specific
84
problem, question, or issue becomes the focus of the research. Data are collected and
analyzed to develop a descriptive model that encompasses all cases of the phenomena”
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 70), and interviews are often the primary data source in this
approach. After each interview, the model or theory is modified. Participants are
purposefully sampled to fit the theoretical model under investigation and data collection
continues until saturation, or until no disconfirmed cases can be found. Often typologies
develop out of the analysis. As Bogdan and Biklen noted, some research will artificially
limit the sample size simply to manage what might potentially be too large to undertake,
as this study has. This means, of course, that the theory developed is limited to just those
participants included in the sample.
Modified analytic induction actually expands theory as it refines it by pulling data
with each additional source sampled; yet the process allows for the narrowing of the
scope of the study through revision of research questions and the exclusion of cases that
do not fit the theory, making it a somewhat controversial approach in methodology
literature (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In this study, collection of disconfirming case
evidence was not feasible due to the nature of such data—unsuccessful policy
entrepreneurs could not be identified, located, and recruited within the time limitations of
this study as they are no longer active. Therefore, modified analytic induction became
the most appropriate means to acquire data to compare against the conceptual framework.
Public documents. Phase 1 documents were collected and analyzed from the
Internet during participant recruitment. Document summary forms were completed for
each document and attribute coded to establish potential participants that met the criteria
for inclusion.
85
Phase 2 documents were summarized in order to help develop an understanding of
the overall context for analyzing the participants’ values, motivations, traits, and
behaviors. Document summary forms were completed for each document and several
layers of coding were applied. Interview field notes and analytic memos were created to
help develop findings related to the conceptual framework, purpose, and research
questions (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2013). Lastly, participant
resumes/curriculum vitae and biographies were analyzed through attribute coding as well.
Multilevel coding strategy. Just as multiple data sources were obtained to
strengthen interpretation and findings, triangulation of data collection was complemented
by triangulation of data analysis approach as well. This was achieved through a multilayer coding strategy. The researcher began the coding process as follows for each
participant: (a) attribute coding was applied for phase 1 document review and analysis of
resumes/curriculum vitae, and/or bios as well as interview transcripts; (b) structural
coding was employed against research questions against all data sources; (c) hypothesis
coding employing “predetermined theory-driven codes” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 148) was used
to help explore the propositions and the conceptual framework against all data sources;
(d) values coding was applied to interview transcripts for proposition testing; (e) process
coding was applied to interview transcripts and phase 2 documents for proposition
testing; (f) versus coding was applied to interview transcripts and phase 2 documents for
proposition testing; (g) emotion, in vivo, and magnitude coding were applied
simultaneously to interview transcripts to weight importance of concepts, draw out
additional themes in the language authentic to the participants, and enhance credibility of
study findings, and finally (h) a coding pass for “emergent or data-driven codes”
86
(Saldaña, 2013, p. 148) was applied to all data to help uncover unexpected findings (see
Table 2). Emergent coding was effective given the modified analytic induction approach
employed in this study. When the researcher came upon a piece of data that could not be
coded in any of the a priori codes, an emergent code was labeled and recorded. Over
time, the frequency of emergent codes enabled the addition of categories to be identified.
A table of the coding process employed in this study to aid in reliability and
replicability (Miles & Huberman, 1994) is offered in Table 2. The researcher used
MAXQDA 11 for Mac, a comprehensive computer application for selecting, storing, and
analyzing narrative interview material to facilitate interpretation, similar to early Fortranbased computer programs suggested by Morris and Morris (1976), to code and analyze all
data. The complete codebook is included in Appendix G.
Once coding was completed, reports generated from MAXQDA 11 enabled the
researcher to pullout emergent codes and categorize them to help answer the research
questions and examine the propositions. According to Yin (2003) analysis should rely
first on theoretical propositions, thinking about rival explanations that can strengthen
results. Developing a case description is helpful but the least preferable, according to
Yin, and given the large size and diversity of participants in this case, the researcher
opted not to provide multiple sub-case descriptions, focusing, rather, on the aggregate as
recommended by Yin. Primary analysis involved pattern-matching codes to propositions
to help strengthen internal validity (Yin, 2003). Overlapping code patterns provided
further data, helping the researcher make new theoretical associations. Cross case
analysis was not employed because the design called for each case to be analyzed in the
aggregate for theoretical replication (Yin, 2003). Yin (2003) also asserted that reporting
87
should be based on a theory-building logic because exploratory cases are about “debating
the value of further investigating various hypotheses or propositions” (p. 154).
Therefore, the researcher did so in Chapter 4.
Table 2
Coding Cycles by Data Source
Coding Cycle
Coding Approach
Data Source
First
Attribute
Phase 1 documents
CVs, resumes, and/or bios
Interview transcripts
Second
Structural by research question
Phase 1 documents
Phase 2 documents
Third
Hypothesis by proposition and
conceptual framework themes
Phase 1 documents
Phase 2 documents
Fourth
Values
Fifth
Process
Phase 2 documents
Sixth
Versus
Phase 2 documents
Seventh
Emotion, In vivo, and Magnitude
Eighth
Emergent/Data-driven
Phase 1 documents
Phase 2 documents
88
Role of the Researcher
The researcher is a White, female graduate student at a public research university
in the Southeast region of the United States with few ties to a small handful of national or
state level higher education policy-makers or the policy making process, and moderately
liberal American citizen. The researcher has never worked for any of the organizations
represented in this study, nor has she worked for or under, or studied with, any of the
participants. Three participants sit on the editorial board of a research journal for which
the researcher is employed part-time. The researcher used her professional network to
gain access to a small number of the participants. These participants are peers of the
researcher’s graduate assistantship supervisor who is also one her professors and a
member of her dissertation committee, another graduate faculty member in her academic
program, and finally, a member of her dissertation committee who is located out of state
relative to the researcher’s institution. While the role of the researcher remains distant
from most participants, there was some familiarity with a small number of participants
that enabled access, but not enough of a tie to add undue bias during the data analysis
phase of this study.
Credibility, Transferability, Dependability, and Confirmability
“Criteria for trustworthiness in qualitative research are closely tied to the
paradigmatic underpinnings of the particular discipline in which a particular investigation
is conducted” (Morrow, 2005, p. 251). Since postpositive research seeks to explain the
observable while acknowledging the biased lens of the researcher (Trochim, 2006), the
researcher aimed to reduce or mitigate bias by assuming tasks in design, collection, and
analysis that would help control for her bias. Erickson (1986) asserted that adequate
89
amounts of evidence, variety in kinds of evidence, interpretive type of evidence,
disconfirming evidence, and discrepant case analysis help validate qualitative research.
Traditional criteria for judging scientific, or empirical, research thus applies in this
paradigm (Patton, 2002). In comparison with quantitative research, in qualitative
research credibility corresponds to internal validity, transferability corresponds to
external validity and generalizability, dependability corresponds to reliability, and
confirmability corresponds to objectivity; this all with different goals as qualitative
methods focus on emic (from within culture) verses etic (from with out culture)
understanding (Morrow, 2005). The postpositivist paradigm and the researcher’s role as
an outsider, however, demarcate analysis from a somewhat etic (general, objective, and
from without) approach; while mitigation of any personal bias that might have been
placed inward and onto the data analysis and interpretation from the researcher’s external
frame was attempted, it cannot be completely removed from the analysis.
The researcher demonstrated credibility, or trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Mishler, 2000), of study findings through the use of: transparent description of the
methods employed; member-checking of interview transcripts (Guba, 1981) to
corroborate findings as it is the participants who have the expert knowledge of the unit of
analysis and topic under study (Miles & Huberman, 1994); a peer debriefer after each
interview (Morrow, 2005; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2010), in vivo coding of data (Saldaña,
2013); thick, rich description of reporting co-opted from the field of anthropology
(Geertz, 1973); and research reflexivity through the use of an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Morrow, 2005) that included analytic memos, interview field notes, and document
summaries. Transferability “is achieved when the researcher provides sufficient
90
information about the self (the researcher as instrument) and the research context,
processes, participants, and researcher–participant relationships to enable the reader to
decide how the findings may transfer” (Morrow, 2005, p. 252). Transferability of study
findings was attempted through the sample size of 23 participants, somewhat large for a
case study analysis of this type, variety of participants, the contextual data analyzed in
this case study, and explanation of the role of the researcher; however, the researcher
cautions that without follow-up studies for comparison, transferability cannot be asserted.
Morrow (2005) explained that dependability requires that “the process through
which findings are derived should be explicitly and repeatable as much as possible” (p.
252). Dependability was demonstrated through explanation of the evolution of the
research design, rigor and consistency of the data analysis employed in this study that
consisted of multiple coding passes, triangulation of data sources, and the audit trail.
Credibility, transferability, dependability and cannot guarantee objectivity.
Confirmability acknowledges that research is never objective (Morrow, 2005).
Mitigating bias was attempted in this study through the audit trail, member-checking, and
relating data and findings “in such a way that the reader is able to confirm the adequacy
of the findings” (Morrow, 2005, p. 252). Three participants approved their verbatim
transcripts as is, five approved their verbatim transcripts with revisions, and the
remaining 16 participants approved by default as was indicated to each of them via email.
Language in excerpts selected for reporting was cleaned to eliminate pauses in speech for
readability. Final cleaned excerpts selected for reporting in this study were also emailed
to each participant for their approval.
91
Limitations
This study’s limitations include the researcher’s role as a policy outsider. While
this can provide fresh prospective for analysis, it challenged the participant recruitment
process forcing the use of chain-referral sampling, introducing some bias and a suspected
lack of representativeness of the study sample against the larger population—given the
completely unknown parameters of this population. The researcher used expert panel
feedback, analytic memos, and interviewer debrief interviews to help mitigate bias, but
this cannot be fully eliminated.
Because open coding was not employed, the researcher did not seek out patterns
in the data-driven codes. However, a cleanup pass was made to decide if any codes could
be collapsed, and as a result, some were. This process is completely subjective and
another researcher might glean different findings.
The researcher sought out disconfirming evidence as a way to refine and
strengthen concepts with good fit with the data and eliminate concepts simply not
supported by the data. This served to provide validity to research findings and revise the
conceptual framework for future research, which was one of the purposes of this study.
However, this case study does not include analysis of disconfirming cases. This is
essentially a participant recruitment issue, but is also a notable limitation to this study; a
successful policy entrepreneur has longevity—is still on the job—those who aren’t, are
simply no longer policy entrepreneurs and move into other career fields thereby placing
them outside the of scope of this study. Future investigations might include seeking out
these former policy entrepreneurs to make a case comparison to help validate this study’s
findings.
92
This study relied upon self-reported data that cannot be independently verified. In
addition, issues with recall such as selective memory, telescoping (not remembering
events in time sequence), attribution (putting a positive spin on the outcomes of one’s
own behavior or taking credit for positive outcomes, and blaming negative outcomes on
others or on external factors), and exaggeration (University of Southern California,
2015). In addition, shorter length interviews among some very busy participants and
participant lack of trust in the researcher may have inhibited full disclosure. The
researcher attempted to mitigate these potential limitations by interviewing nearly twodozen participants and including document review to aid in triangulation. Multiple
interviews over time with each participant, as well as observational data, can strengthen
findings in similar future studies. Regardless, findings cannot necessarily be considered
wholly transferable.
Delimitations
In order to control the size of this study given the multiple layers of analysis and
the potential to recruit hundreds of policy entrepreneurs surmised to be active in national
and state policy arenas throughout the United States, the sample size was limited to a
maximum of 24 participants focused on broad-based policy innovations. In addition,
local and institutional policy innovations were out of the scope of this study unless they
were being introduced at the national or state levels for broader adoption.
Chapter Summary
The evolution of the research design of this study, from non-experimental,
exploratory, sequential mixed methodology research design to descriptive, revelatory,
single-case study is reflective of both the nature of the researcher’s use of bricolage as
93
well as her own inclination to examine the methodological approach as much as the unit
of analysis. The data collection and analysis procedures were streamlined, but the
intended outcomes as shaped by the purpose of this study remained untouched. Data
from nearly two dozen interview transcriptions and nearly 100 public and personal
documents from a variety of sources along with a multi-layered, but structured, coding
process that was designed to test a series of nine propositions in support of the conceptual
framework, helped to triangulate the data analysis and interpretation of this study. In
Chapter 4, the findings are shared as supported by thick, rich data from interview
transcripts and document review, supported by the literature.
94
IV. FINDINGS
Findings from this study, gleaned from review of 75 documents and 721 pages of
interview transcriptions and a multi-layer coding analysis that resulted in 7,559 code
assignments across 475 codes, are organized by a synopsis of the document analysis that
provided the contextual base for this case study, situating the role of the policy
entrepreneurs who participated. This is followed by an overview of findings organized
by research questions. Lastly, emergent findings relevant to the study’s purpose are
shared.
Description of Context
The context within which the policy entrepreneurs in this study work generally
speaks to an overarching atmosphere of complexity, tension, and competition,
particularly at the federal level. Even at the state level, federal policy culture trickles
down and impacts state policy making, hampering effective problem solving and policy
advocacy, as noted by Mintrom and Norman (2009). Participants called the context
“fragmented” (Suzanne Walsh, Deputy Director on the Postsecondary Success Team of
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), and “in disarray” (Belle Wheelan, President,
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges). Sally
Johnstone, Vice President of Academic Advancement at Western Governors University,
shared: “Oh, it’s a little like herding cats.” Interview transcripts inform this finding that
were corroborated by document review. Select excerpts follow.
95
David Baime, Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Research at
AACC, illustrated the contentious nature of the higher education policy context at the
national level:
I think it’s really unfortunate…I think it’s a little less pitched, a little less planned,
than it is at some other areas. But nevertheless, I’d have to say that sort of
partisan aspect of Washington influences policy making. I think people are less
prone to working with each other and so I think it impacts, on one level, just their
ability to get things done, but on another level, their willingness to incorporate
other people’s ideas which generally have merit to them.
President and CEO of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC),
Walter Bumphis, offered a similar perspective:
When I think about policy outlooks at the highest levels, and that’s right here in
Washington—very hard. And in many ways you’re having to certainly work on
compromises, you have to compromise. And you know, when you see what’s
happening here in DC with the general government and the Rs and Ds, that’s not a
joke. But it doesn’t make any of our work any easier either. So, what you’ve got
to do, you’ve actually got a front row seat to watch your sausages get made and so
you want to be very careful about that. And on the other hand you have an
opportunity to help shape the way the sausage is made. And that of course is
what we do. I do believe that…no one should be concerned [about] who gets the
credit, that you can work together with people where you create wham-bam
opportunities and certainly can jazz that proverbial needle if you will. In our case,
96
regarding students’ exams, the chance to look at the budget and the finance, and
the ways in which we can do more with less.
Betsy Brand, Executive Director, American Youth Policy Forum, shared that everything
is more challenging in this context, and that a sense of dysfunctionality and nastiness in
Washington, DC pervades the political atmosphere. Pat Callan, founder of the National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education in California; Jamelia (pseudonym), an
associate professor and former state education director at a Midwestern university; and
Jan Ignash, Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs at the State University
System of Florida Board of Governors, all noted the increased polarization in politics in
general impacts higher education.
Martha Kanter, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Higher Education and Senior
Fellow, Steinhardt Institute of Higher Education Policy, New York University and former
Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Education, offered that in this political environment,
only incremental change is possible at this time, yet suggested that the hard work to
achieve policy change must not be diminished. The idea, noted by every participant, is to
prepare for the openings and opportunities to come, as this is inevitable given the cyclical
nature of partisan politics in the U.S. To illustrate, Terry O’Banion, President Emeritus
and Senior League Fellow, League for Innovation in the Community College, Professor
and Chair of Graduate Faculty, Walden University, and Senior Advisor, National
American University, asserted that:
Change can happen but it needs a champion and the change needs monitoring…I
have been a leading spokesperson in books, articles, speeches, and on
commissions that we must overhaul the traditional architecture of education if we
97
are going to have any chance at reform. We inherited our current form of
education from agricultural and industrial eras, and instead of changing these we
trim and adjust around the edges…Until we work hard to change this architecture
which structures our time and our work, we will never make much progress.
Not every participant felt that the current political environment was wholly
negative, and all participants acknowledged that use of strategy and political skill could
help move the nation toward change despite any challenges in the system. This
perspective is not surprising, for had any participants any doubt as to whether they could
still make an impact despite the political climate, one might wonder if they were
appropriately suited to their work. On the contrary, participants are not only well-suited,
but were highly motivated and had focused their professional development on being more
effective communicators, information disseminators, and policy diffusers in order to be
successful, that is, to achieve longevity and be more impactful over the years.
In Kentucky, Michael McCall, recently retired President and CEO of the
Kentucky Community and Technical College System, explained that different aspects of
the higher education system work together in his state and so he does not necessarily feel
the same pressures that others due at the nation level or in their respective states:
We have had a good relationship, in Kentucky…all of our education works very
closely together. I’m not at odds with the universities. We work very closely
together. We work on legislation together. We work on budgets together…we all
look at it as we’re all in it together. Yeah, so it’s a very unique relationship, I
think, that we have with, with universities now. We all have our own interests
98
and we, we lobby and focus on our needs…but we also focus on the whole for
education.
Regarding the excitement and motivation he derives from the current political
context and his role as policy entrepreneur in higher education, David Longanecker,
President of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, explained:
I would say, in some respects, it’s one of the most exciting times I work in.
People are willing to think about what are new ways to do things, and there are a
lot of ideas out there, and a lot of innovation and creativity there that’s occurring,
and so it’s really quite an interesting arena. Having said that, there are, I think,
two unique challenges that we face. One is that there are a number of…people
who will not listen to anybody. They are so ideologically tied to a position, and
frankly this is on both sides. This is not just the ultra conservative. To some
extent, you see it on the other side; people who will not recognize the limits of the
liberal agenda.
And so I think that’s one of the dilemmas. They’re really not very nice
people, in many respects, and not willing to listen, at all, so you can’t really work
with them. The second, I think, really big challenge is that there is tremendous
enamorement right now with innovation and many are willing to accept untested
ideas. Because I’m a policy wonk, I believe evidence based practice is a lot wiser
than working on hunches, and there’s just an awful lot of, “Gee, that sounds like a
good idea, let’s do that,” and so, in fact, if you’re willing to support innovation, to
some extent, you have to do that because a brand new idea doesn’t have a track
record, you don’t have evidence. But we’ve got to find ways in which we can
99
back away from ideas when they turn out to have been a good idea that didn’t
work. And we tend, once we’ve done something, not to be able to shut it down if
it doesn’t work. So, that’s where I see these challenges we face…and some of the
ideas, frankly, are not good ideas…they’re not realistic in the world of people that
actually have worked in higher education, or have worked in public policy…but,
they sound so good—free tuition. They are just ideas that in a developed country
with limited resources you can do a lot, but you can’t do everything, for many
reasons.
Dr. Longanecker is not only stimulated by the context, but careful as well. He remains
wary of those who do not use information skillfully, and is careful to work with those
across the political spectrum, evidence of how context shapes his role.
Steve Ovel, former Executive Director, Governmental Relations, Kirkwood
Community College, imparted that the change in context has impacted how his work
needs to be approached as well, requiring him to balance a diversity of perspectives, but
also adjust his approach to manage more challenge in a cycle of increasing contention:
It’s an interesting business. And this year in particular, we spent more time
lobbying other special interest groups because they were the ones that were
causing us the heartburn, in what we were trying to get done, because they had
their own vested self-interests at play. They were about to get three million
dollars of new money into their apprenticeship program. So we’ve got, you
know, all the labor unions and the apprenticeship groups and, people that know
how to play hardball very well and don’t hesitate to, you know, not take prisoners.
So that was a dynamic that came in on us this year that we weren’t accustomed to
100
working with quite in that way…it had been pretty collaborative and lately, not so
much.
Primary Research Question
Once again, the purpose of this study was to create a descriptive portrait of the
successful policy entrepreneur in the national and state higher education policy making.
The first primary research question asked: What can be learned from successful policy
policy innovation in the United States?
The researcher used document review, expert peer review, and chain referral
sampling to identify, recruit, and interview 23 policy entrepreneurs throughout the U.S.
operating at state and national levels. The criteria for selection aside from having the
work of policy advocacy in higher education be a primary responsibility, required that
they have some degree of longevity in the field and be currently active in their role so
that the data they shared could be corroborated by other participants’ data as well as
document review.
Overview of participant demographics. Table 3 lists the participants (with the
exception of those blinded), their organizational affiliations at the time of their interview,
and their geographic location of their organizational affiliation. One interview, with Mr.
Ovel, was held face-to-face in Pompano Beach, Florida, not in his home state of Iowa.
The researcher was able to access participants from Alabama, California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Washington,
DC. They represent a variety of organizations focused on community colleges, four-year
colleges, and universities including professional associations, policy centers,
101
philanthropic organizations, consulting firms, governing and coordinating boards, and
universities.
Among this group, only one, Mr. Baime, was a registered lobbyist in Washington,
DC during 2014 (OpenSecrets.org, 2014); however, 11 of the participants’ organizational
affiliations were registered federal lobbyists this past year including the American
Association of Community Colleges, Indian Hills Community College, the Kentucky
Community and Technical College System, New York University, the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools, the State University System of Florida, Western
Governors University, the blinded university at which Jamelia works, and the blinded
organization where Kenneth is employed. Dr. McCall and Mr. Ovel are both selfproclaimed lobbyists at the state level, only the latter having the legal requirement
according to their respective state laws to register as such. Matthew Thompson, Vice
President, Academic Affairs and Institutional Effectiveness, Indian Hills Community
College, acknowledged lobbying activities specifically in his state. Jamelia was not
current a lobbyist, but had been one in a former role. Other participants do, in fact
perform lobbying activities, but no others chose to self-identify as such. A list of
registered lobbyists at the state level was not collected due to the lack of open access in
all states in which relevant participants are currently located.
It is worth noting that seven participants have worked exclusively in the
community college sector; two currently work in the community college sector, but have
worked for 4-year colleges/systems in the past; four currently work across all sectors with
exclusive community college backgrounds; nine work across all sectors; and one works
specifically in bridging P-12 and postsecondary access and success.
102
Table 3
Participants in This Study in Order of Interview
Participant
"Kenneth"
Organization
(at Time of Interview)
League for Innovation in the
Community College, National
American University, Walden
University
"HE Professional Association"
"Jamelia"
"Midwestern University"
Walter Bumphis
American Association of Community
Colleges
Kirkwood Community College
Terry O’Banion
Steve Ovel
Christopher Mullin
Jan Ignash
Stephen Katsinas
T. Nicole
Washington
Angie Bell
State University System of Florida
Board of Governors
State University System of Florida
Board of Governors
Education Policy Center, University
of Alabama
Lumina Foundation
Betsy Brand
Division of Policy and Planning, West
Virginia Higher Education Policy
Commission
Higher Education Policy Institute
American Association of Community
Colleges
American Youth Policy Forum
Christina
Whitfield
Sally Johnstone
Kentucky Community and Technical
College System
Western Governors University
Belle Wheelan
Martha J. Kanter
Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools Commission on Colleges
New York University
Kristin Conklin
HCM Strategists
Matthew
Thompson
David A.
Longanecker
Travis Reindl
Indian Hills Community College
Pat Callan
David Baime
Michael McCall
Suzanne Walsh
Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education
US Program Office of the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation
Kentucky Community and Technical
College System
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
103
Title
(at Time of Interview)
President Emeritus & Senior
League Fellow, Professor and
Chair of Graduate Faculty, Senior
Advisor
"Assistant Director of a Policy
Office"
"Associate Professor and Former
State Education Director"
President and CEO
Executive Director, Governmental
Relations
Assistant Vice Chancellor, Policy
& Research
Vice Chancellor for Academic and
Student Affairs
Director, Professor of Higher
Education Administration
Consultant – Florida State Higher
Education Policy
Vice Chancellor for Policy and
Planning
President
Senior Vice President, Government
Relations and Research
Executive Director
Vice Chancellor for Research and
Analysis
Vice President of Academic
Advancement
President
Distinguished Visiting Professor of
Higher Education and Senior
Fellow, Steinhardt Institute of
Higher Education Policy
Founding Partner
Vice President, Academic Affairs
and Institutional Effectiveness
President
Senior Program Officer
President and Chief Executive
Officer
Deputy Director on the
Postsecondary Success Team
Participant
Location
Irvine, CA
Washington,
DC
Midwest City,
Any State
Washington,
DC
Cedar Rapids,
IA
Tallahassee, FL
Tallahassee, FL
Tuscaloosa, AL
Miami, FL
Charleston, WV
San Jose, CA
Washington,
DC
Washington,
DC
Versailles, KY
Salt Lake City,
UT
Decatur, GA
New York, NY
Washington,
DC
Ottumwa, IA
Boulder, CO
Washington,
DC
Versailles, KY
Seattle, WA
Table 4 displays an aggregate listing of participants’ formal educational
background including highest levels of educational attainment, fields of study, and types
of educational institutions. This table also includes participants’ longevity in the role of
policy entrepreneur and related roles (such as lobbyist). This measure serves to define
their level of success in terms of assumed mastery based on years in the field.
While it might at first appear that there is alignment between education level
(highest degree attained), and longevity as a measure of success, this in fact is not the
case. Of the two “emergent” participants, one has a master’s degree, the other a
doctorate. If the four “established” participants, one has a master’s degree and three have
a doctorate. Of the two participants with a bachelor’s degree as their highest level of
attainment, both are “master” participants with over six decades of experience between
them. What is evident is that the majority of participants in this study had their
doctorates, but more importantly, the majority were also masters with over 10 years of
work each in their entrepreneurial careers.
The researcher had anticipated a high number of participants coming out of
political science, policy studies, government, and economics programs, but aside from a
notable few participants with degrees in history, the majority of participants had degrees
in education, and more specifically, a majority of participants also had advanced or
terminal degrees in higher education leadership/administration. The implications of this
finding will be discussed in Chapter 5, but it is important to acknowledge that there are
only a handful of higher education leadership/administration programs in the United
States that house policy centers and focus their curriculum on educational policy studies.
104
Table 4
Participants’ Formal Educational Background and Longevity as Measure of Success
Education Sector
N
Community College
2
Public College/University
8
Private College/University
7
Mixed Public/Private College/University
10
Highest Degree Attained
N
Bachelor's Only
2
Master's
5
Doctoral/JD
16
Longevity as Measure of Success
N
Emergent (0-5 years)
2
Established (6-10 years)
4
Master (>10 years)
17
Fields of Study
Aggregate n per Field
Anthropology, Art History, Classics, Economics, Law,
Mathematics, Physics, Social Work, Science/Applied Science,
Urban & Regional Planning
1
Foreign Languages, Guidance/Counseling, Sociology
2
English and Speech
3
Political Science/Policy Studies/Government, Psychology
4
History
6
Education
7
Higher Education Leadership/Administration
13
Keeping in mind that a policy innovation is considered so with respect to context,
and that policy entrepreneurs can work for years to realize a policy innovation and
105
therefore work on more than one policy innovation at a time, the policy innovation foci of
the participants in this study are included in the aggregate in Table 5. In addition, inputs
into the policy making process cause tension and policy will shape and re-shape multiple
times before the end product is realized as legislation, and even then it can still morph.
That being said, Table 5 offers a look at the areas in which policy entrepreneurs have
been focused.
Not surprisingly given the college completion agenda, student success initiatives
make up a large number of the innovation foci among this study’s participants.
Workforce development/education programs are a related area and competency-cased
programs, alternative credentialing, even creative data reporting can be included here.
What is not apparent from this list is the cyclical nature of many of these areas. While a
niche area, such as eliminating late registration that Dr. O’Banion has been a proponent
of for several years rather steadily, or dual enrollment programs of which there are very
few across the country, some ideas have broad reach but come and go with political
power cycles, such as performance-based funding initiatives. Others do not have broad
enough appeal, but have tremendous potential impact and keep coming back year after
year, such as the Dream Act initiative. Lastly, there are contemporary initiatives that are
definitively driven from the technology curve, such as a multi-state data system,
crowdsourcing research, use of telecommunications for instructional delivery, and even
the elimination of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which now has
bipartisan support.
106
Table 5
Participants’ Policy Innovation Foci
Focus Area
Specific Policy Innovation
Accountability
Performance-based Funding, State Higher Education Report Cards
Business and Finance
Default Rate Penalty Prevention, Enrollment Management, Tuition
Pricing
College Access
College Readiness, Distance/Online Education, Dream Act, Dual
Enrollment, P-12 to College Pathway, Rural CCs, Transfer/Reverse
Transfer/Articulation
Information
Coordinated or Aggregated Data Management Systems,
Crowdsourcing and Analytics, Data Visualization and Infographics,
Institutional Research, Telecommunications
Innovation
Best Practices, Competitions, Creative Collaborations
Legal Issues
Amendment of Outdated Regulation and Legislation, Gun Control
on Campus
Student Aid
Elimination of the FAFSA, Federal Aid Formulas, Increasing Pell
Grants, Revising Pell Grant Formula, Merit Aid, State Aid Formulas
Student Success
Academic Advising/Financial Aid Counseling, Adult Learners,
Benefits for Veterans, Community College
Completion/Credentialing, Competency-based Education,
Disadvantaged Students, Elimination of Late Registration, Graduate
Rates/Completion, International Education, Minority Students,
Quality of College Teaching
Workforce Education
Apprenticeship Programs, Credentialing, Economic Development,
Teacher Preparation, Industry Partnerships
To begin to answer this research question, what can be learned is that the policy
entrepreneurs in higher education in this study are generally very well-educated, most
frequently having a formal background in higher education leadership or related fields.
They work on a diverse array of policy issues and solutions based on their personal
interests. Most can be considered masters of their work based on their years in the field.
107
But how they do their work and what makes them successful cannot be answered without
digging deeper through the sub-research questions of this study.
Sub-research Question a
The first primary research question had four sub-questions, the first being: What
is their role in higher education policy making? In other words, exactly what do policy
entrepreneurs contribute to higher education policy making in the U.S.? The literature
suggests that policy entrepreneurs in general are agenda setters, policy diffusors, and they
accomplish this by coalition building. This primary role is corroborated by participant
data and in the policy entrepreneurs in this study demonstrate their impact as agenda
setters, diffusers, and relationship and coalition builders.
Policy diffuser. The following are participant excerpts that highlight the role of
policy diffuser among the participants in this study. Ms. Brand shared:
A lot of what we do is look for effective programs across the country and
effective leaders…who are doing a good job in either reforming their school
systems or finding creative ways to help young people be successful. And when I
say that, basically we’re talking about helping young people get through high
school, get into post-secondary education, and earn some type of credential or
degree that allows them to be successful in the labor market.
By looking across the country and sharing these best practices, Ms. Brand uses her role to
diffuse innovation. She continued:
Particularly at the higher ed level we’re looking at the kinds of programs that
support young people as they’re coming in, particularly disadvantaged
populations that might not have a great deal of experience about college and not
108
really have, you know, the college knowledge, if you will, about how to negotiate
the system. So a lot of the work that we do is scoping out and conducting
research to find out where people are doing good, creative, innovative things,
research that’s being conducted that proves the point about what works and why it
works. And then we organize events where we convene policy makers and
practitioners and researchers and bring them together to talk about either the
challenges that they’re facing or some of the solutions that appear to be working.
Dr. Walsh articulated the policy diffusion aspect of her role as well:
I’ve actually worked at an individual institution, and while that’s fun and
interesting for creating change, but it’s not the same as actually being at the
national level, to be able to look across a number of institutions and get best
practices and share those and…spread the good news of the work.
Sharing ideas for best practices, issues, and topics was also noted by Christina Whitfield,
Vice Chancellor for Research and Analysis, Kentucky Community and Technical College
System, as well as several other participants. The role of policy diffuser appears to be a
primary one for the participants in this study.
Information disseminator. Relatedly, policy entrepreneurs in this study are also
information disseminators, or brokers (Kingdon, 2011), who use information to help
influence others’ understanding in order to couple policy solutions to problems. “Our job
is to work to ensure that those who do make policy are well informed” shared Jamelia.
This is echoed by Christopher Mullin, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Policy and Research,
State University System of Florida Board of Governors at the time of his interview and
recently named as the Executive Vice Chancellor of the Division of Florida Colleges,
109
who shared: “my job…especially my job right now…is to provide data and information
to inform people who make decisions.” Information dissemination means being
comfortable working in a variety of modalities and travel:
I’m really making a very concentrated effort to tour the state. I meet with
different levels of organizations, from community, to state, and national
organizations that are operating in Florida. I visit and work with institutions
including colleges, universities, private, public, and state agencies such as the
governor’s office, board of governors, and Florida state colleges. (T. Nicole
Washington, Consultant – Florida State Higher Education Policy, Lumina
Foundation)
In some cases they collect the data themselves, or with other organizational
staffers, as Mr. Callan has done. In other cases they partner with think tanks, policy
centers, and professional associations to disseminate information regarding the policy
idea or issue they are focusing on. Kristin Conklin of Founding Partner of HCM
Strategists boasted that, “policy content is one of our core competencies;” her assertion is
backed by her formidable client list that includes The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
Education Commission of the States, National Governors Association, and National
Institutes for Health, among others. Some, like Kenneth, have become adept at sharing
information with reporters and legislators through face-to-face meetings, and establishing
a dialogue with the public via media outlets, radio programs, and social media. Dr.
Mullin on the other hand did not, in his former role at the American Association of
Community Colleges (AACC), disseminate information for the media, but for public
consumption and of course, for policy-makers:
110
My audience is never the media. I was always excited, because almost all of my
policy briefs, except for one, was picked up by either The Chronicle [of Higher
Education] or Inside Higher Ed, so that elevated them to a point, right? But the
reason why they did that was because they provided value and…we provided
another perspective of an issue had been going on for a long time…
Data gatherer and listener. Information dissemination requires learning, and
several participants noted that this is part of how they do what they do. Mr. Baime
stated:
I spend maybe 20% of my time on The Hill and maybe 20% dealing with
members, community college presidents…20% doing administration in the office
of one sort or another and then another 40% just learning, keeping abreast of
what’s going on.
Dr. McCall shared:
So there’s a lot of swirling of the different meetings that are going on and it’s
gathering information and information and, and, it is knowledge is power…You
cannot give me too much information. So don’t ever think that you ever saturate
me because you can’t. The more I have, the more I absorb, and the more I’m able
to put it all together and, and make those decisions that are there.
Policy analyzer and policy-focused reporter. Another aspect of information
dissemination found was the work of policy analysis, another function that participants
reported that they engaging in. This involves writing for multiple audiences within a
policy community, as well as for the public (Mintrom, 2003). Participants were
111
conscientious about making their case, reframing their points to fit with their intended
audience.
We receive numerous requests every leg session, my staff and me, for data, and
I’ve asked my staff to make sure they ask whomever is requesting the information
to articulate what their underlying questions are. Sometimes, people aren't clear
about their questions...They phone to ask for specific pieces of data and they treat
that data as the entire issue or the question. It’s not. They’re just pieces of data,
and they can be used incorrectly and the results can be inaccurate or misleading.
(Dr. Ignash)
Reframing can help shape how data are disseminated, accepted, and eventually used by
policy-makers. Relatedly, Kenneth shared:
What I think has been most effective for us with policy makers and state
governing boards, is having a policy brief that’s short, that helps kind of the
average Joe or Sally understand the issue, breaking down the issue, and have it be
timely. And so people can use it as a resource as they make decisions in their
state.
This was mirrored by Travis Reindl, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Program Office of the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:
I felt most successful in my career when I have been effective in translating the
world of higher education policy and the world of policy to higher education. By
that I mean really helping policymakers understand the degrees of freedom and
the pressure points that higher education is facing, and the language that they use
and vice versa, that the people on campuses and in system offices understand that
112
these politicians are just not being arbitrary under pressure, that they have their
own incentives, and their own pressure, and their own degrees of freedom or lack
thereof.
Agenda setter. Information dissemination helps to bridge people, build
relationship, and diffuse policy. It also helps to set agendas, another major role of the
policy entrepreneur explicated in the literature and reinforced by the participants of this
study. Angela Bell shared that one of the ways in which she was able to set the agenda
with her team while she held the role of Vice Chancellor for Policy and Planning at the
West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission (since her interview for this study,
Dr. Bell has taken on a new role as Senior Executive Director for Research, Policy and
Analysis for the University System of Georgia) includes having established monthly
meetings with legislative members of the commission close to her work. Policy
entrepreneurs on her team have various roles; she for example, provides the data while it
is another individuals role to build relationships, “I think I’m most successful when I’ve
gotten the right information into the hands of somebody needing it and needing to make
decisions for an initiative, having seen that information being valuable to them…”
Together, along with a cadre of staff, they help shape the high education agenda in their
state. Similarly, Dr. Longanecker travels to share information and advocate: “I spend a
lot of time in Washington trying to help folks in Washington understand the West, and
higher education in the West, and that requires quite a bit of travel.” Like Dr. Bell, he
works with a staff and a group of commissioners:
Very often, this is where my commission often comes in very helpful. I have 48
commissioners, three for each of the states and I regularly, sort of, ask them what
113
is going on in their states, what are the things we should be dealing with, and I’ll
frequently get a call from one saying, “You know, what’s bubbling up in our state
is this issue around…”
Dr. Bumphis sums up his role as an influencer of both policy and practice in an
effort to “work on the agenda for higher education and specifically for community
colleges” which he does in collaboration with the other Big Six associations. Another
influencer is Dr. Wheelan who shared:
I have sat on national policy committees…I sat on that panel before NC-SARA
was formed and now I’m on NC-SARA’s Board. You know, I’m on National
Student Clearing House Board, I’m on the Lumina Board, I’m on ACT’s Board,
so from that standpoint I have influence into the decisions of major organizations
who are making positions regarding higher education.
Recognizing, opening, and creating windows of opportunity. Regarding
recognizing windows of opportunity Ms. Conklin offered:
they absolutely open...during my work over the last four or five years, I work to
look for and create those opportunities to make an issue a valence issue, and
[Kingdon] talks about in the book, it’s not about whether you get, you can drive
drunk, but it’s about what is the level at which we’re going to put you in jail?
And that’s when you know you have a policy win, when you’re talking about how
much and not whether...And then, it’s, how do you get issues to become those
kinds of valence issues? In terms of windows of opportunity, you know, I’m kind
of disgusted that window of opportunities happened as happenstance as they do,
and that’s why you actually need to hire people who full-time watch for this, and
114
full-time are so, kind of, in the mix and kind of in the sandbox that, when
something happens fast, you call three people, we’re one of the three people you
call.
Dr. Whitfield stated that:
You just have to learn on the job who the right people are to talk to. You have to
be ready to jump at a chance to speak with them. Sometimes we are given a
directive that if we are in the legislative hallways and see a few certain people that
we should try to jump on the elevator with them and share a few words. That can
happen.
Kenneth explained:
The key thing I think for us is hitting the iron when it’s hot...to find a policy issue
like the pay forward, pay it back that, you know, there’s 20 states. It’s just a hot
topic right now. In a year and a half or two years, that policy window will be
closed, ‘cause I, I don’t think that this policy, most people will look at this policy
and once they study it they’ll be like, “This is, this is not the way forward.” But
right now it’s hot. And a few years ago we discussed a lot about performance
funding, because there are a lot of states that we’re looking at performance based
funding systems.
Coalition builder. At the state level, Dr. Ignash commented, “I think the things
I’m most proud of entail pulling groups together to look at steering higher ed in the
direction of the state’s highest needs.” Dr. Ignash’s comment suggests that both the roles
of coalition building and agenda setting are inseparable functions. This is echoed and
made more explicit in terms of how this occurs in Dr. McCall’s account of his role:
115
I have to deal with every member of the general assembly in Kentucky. There are
138 members of the general assembly: 38 in the Senate and 100 in the House.
And so my job is to get to know every one of those as best as I possibly can…it’s
not one or two or three that I focus my leadership, but they’re all important
because all of them represent at least one or more of my colleges….So I feel an
obligation and responsibility as part of my job to get to know those so they
understand what the system is and link, then, my position [to the] system with the
colleges as well….My schedule is clear to spend time in the general assembly and
that time may be appearing before committee. I am the chief lobbyist for our
system, so that’s my role, really, with the folks when they come in to town,
spending as much time as I can with them. And so…if it was testifying, or
attending community meetings, or just making the rounds to talk to different
people, you know, it’s just, it’s a daily thing that I do when I go into
session…that’s just a perspective of how important it is to connect legislatively
because, you know, we do receive a significant amount of money, appropriation
from the general assembly.
Mr. Ovel just recently retired, but is still active in his role in a limited capacity and is a
proud wearer of the lobbyist badge, in his case, institutional lobbyist, working at shaping
state workforce education policy. He shared:
It’s all about relationship building. I mean, that’s what I do for a living. If I had
to take my job description and get it down to two words, it’d be relationship
building.
Another institutional lobbyist, Dr. Thompson, shared:
116
My thing has been always to develop relationships with legislators. You know, I
have a lot of folks that I can call today that I’ve just worked with, you know…it’s
not a hard sell. It’s always been kind of a soft sell, just having that
communication, letting them know, you know, what’s happening at your college
campus, what your students are facing. I like to use students also to share
information about their lives, things they’ve overcome…how they’ve been
impacted by their education. That’s what legislators want to hear.
Policy formulation is also an important role for some, but not all participants.
Many at the mastery level were working on helping to formulate policy in a hands-on
manner with the organizations, commissions, and legislatures that would be using the
policy. Dr. Johnstone discussed her role in not simply advocating for, but shaping, policy
around competency-based education in the community college sector:
I’m working with steering of community colleges across the country, 11 of
them…I’m helping them develop competency-based education programs, which,
you know, okay, great. Well, CBE does a whole bunch of stuff when you begin
doing it, it’s another one of those leverages for change within the academic
enterprise that, you know, WGU, you know, Western Governors, is a CBE
institution and I was part of the design team that got to pull that together…you
know, I kind of know it real deeply, but nobody’s ever tried to change a
traditional institution and guide them into a competency-based framework…and
all the while discovering what works, what doesn’t, and why. You know, how
can you export what we’ve already gotten in place to be able to take advantage of
what seems to be a very effective framework for students?…It’s not sheer, “Do
117
this, do this, do this.” It’s rather, “Here’s the stuff you want to think about in
order to create a program with integrity and of value with your students, but how
you do it is up to you.”
Advisor and mentor. In this way Dr. Johnstone plays the role of advisor too.
Dr. Wheelan, Mr. Reindl, Dr. Walsh, Dr. Mullin, and several other participants also play
an advisory role in their work. For these policy entrepreneurs, disseminating information
is more than sharing data, even if to influence policy; it also involves educating
legislators, the public, and even their peers.
Participants understand the importance of their role as information disseminator,
policy diffuser, relationship and coalition builder, lobbyist, influencer, and agenda setter;
so it’s little surprise that several noted the role that mentoring others plays in their lives.
Jamelia, for example, asked, “How do we take and create this next generation of leaders
that have the level of understanding, the depth of context or knowledge that, that we
have?” She too is a policy diffuser who works to share policy being implemented in
other states in order to make recommendations within her own state, but she is also
looking to inform the next generation of policy entrepreneurs, as were most of the
participants, particularly those at the mastery level. Dr. Kanter mirrored Jamelia’s
sentiment:
It’s really doing everything I can, at this stage in my life, to prepare the way for
the next generation of leadership, whether it’s teaching the graduate students that
I have and encouraging them to get their PhDs and Master’s degrees to become
policy leaders, principals, community college presidents, provosts, university
presidents, K-12 teachers, etc., really trying to clear up pathways to higher
118
education, especially for people that would have to overcome more challenge than
others in our country.
Stephen Katsinas, Professor of Higher Education Administration and Director of
the Education Policy Center, University of Alabama, is a policy entrepreneur focused on
the needs of rural colleges, the economic development of rural areas, and the investment
of rural people’s education. Aside from his research, policy papers, and policy advocacy
and advising work, he too is focused on the future: “what I try to do as a professor is to
teach them how to tell the stories.”
Problem solver. The problem solving orientation to their role and activities was
evident among several, but not all participants. It appears to be a function of one’s
position, so only policy entrepreneurs with a problem solving directive or capacity in
their position are able to perform this function in some capacity is either a problemfinder, idea-generator, solution-finder, or acceptance-finder.
Problem-finding naturally extends from data analysis activities. As Dr. Mullin
exhorted, problem identification is sometimes in itself a problem:
I’m doing a lot more lately with institutional researchers and academic
researchers, but a real, clear understanding of what the problem is, right? So if
you read a lot of papers, there’s not a real clear and strong understanding of what
the problem is. There’s, “Somebody else says this is the problem, so I’ll agree to
it,” right? From a policy perspective…the first thing I’ll do is look at the problem
or problem statement, and say, “What’s the problem? Do they really understand
the problem?” You know? Like, “we’re falling behind the world in
educational”…well, the problem is we’re, kind of, not really, we’ve never really
119
been the world…you know? So there’s more in this conversation, but part of it’s
newer scholars too, so you’ve got to balance that whole thing out. And that’s
where you can provide feedback and you kind of help them better understand the
problem. But sometimes they’re just so far off, or…they overstate things to the
point where it’s like, “Nobody’s ever done this before.” No, that’s incorrect, you
know?
Dr. Bumphis recalled the need for solution-finding in terms of “the extent to
which we can share the most promising practices, provide our leaders with lessons that
work, people have a real appetite for solutions out there.” Dr. Kanter asserted that: “we
need to apply what we already know from research while we continue to create new
knowledge to solve more problems better and faster.”
Problem solving does not always culminate in policy innovation. Mr. Callan
explained that just getting an issue on the agenda is a step toward problem solving. He
also discussed, what Ms. Washington also explicitly mentioned and that others alluded to
as well, that an element of trial and error is involved in problem solving. Dr. Johnstone
explained:
Nobody’s ever tried to change a traditional institution and guide them into a
competency-based framework…all the while discovering what works, what
doesn’t, and why. You know, how can you export what we’ve already gotten in
place to be able to take advantage of what seems to be a very effective framework
for students?
Acceptance-finding requires work in gaining buy-in for an idea or solution, as Dr.
Ignash disclosed:
120
We do an awful lot of that thinking work ahead of time, before any report is ever
finalized. As a matter of fact, at the conceptual stage, we’re thinking about the
dissemination routes, about checks and balances, and about other planning
elements, such as who can see drafts of this and give us feedback before the
process is too far along and it’s not possible to make changes. We’ll have internal
informal meetings, where we sit and think these things through….I think it’s a
vital part of what we do.…You can sit and do all the good work in the world, but
in the policy arena, if you don’t have people buy into it and own it, it just falls
flat.
Mr. Reindl revealed his process:
Part of it is for us a discussion about work arounds. If there are things, for
example, on data, if the federal government is not willing to or not interested in
moving on improving the quality or quantity of data available on outcomes then
the question is, “Do we need to take this to the state, and have the states work
together?” The other part of it for us is to try to identify, however few and far
between they might be, those places, those openings, where we might be able to
make at least some headway…
Ms. Washington simply shared: “We’re always looking to increase buy-in. So I don’t
exclude anyone.” To try and sum-up the problem solving skillset, Kenneth stated:
I think the skill set is being able to identify the problems out of the minds of
people, out of the minds of policy makers, and to advocate solutions and
communicate solutions in a way that they understand, in a way that that logically
121
makes sense. I think that’s just the simplest way to try to address some of these
challenges.
Sub-research Question b
In beginning to understand the multifaceted role of the policy entrepreneur in
higher education as this study has done, the next step was to ask: What are their
characteristics (i.e., leadership traits, leadership skills, values, and motivation) and
behaviors (i.a., problem solving, networking, date use and dissemination)? Analysis of
the participants’ interview transcripts resulted in a cataloguing of their traits, skills,
values, and motivations that are reported in the tables and narrative below (see Table 6,
Table 8, and Table 10). Each table offers select supporting text segments to help
illustrate why these traits, skills, values, and motivations were pulled from the raw data.
These findings are not based on the number of responses in each category, or headcount,
but rather employed analytic induction to expand the categories until saturation of the
collected data was achieved. What came out of asking this research question was also the
need to catalogue elements of leadership style (see Table 7) as well as a distinct set of
political skills (see Table 9), and these are also included below.
Leadership traits. The list of leadership traits embodied by the participants in
this study is lengthy (see Table 6). A total of 20 items were categorized as leadership
traits important to the success of the participating policy entrepreneurs. Some traits, like
having vision, being charismatic, and having integrity are not unfamiliar to students of
leadership theory. Other traits, such as diplomacy, showboating, willingness to
compromise, and perseverance may be more particular to policy entrepreneurs. This
cataloguing of leadership traits is the beginning of a research process that is needed in
122
order to refine and validate a unique set of traits particular to the policy entrepreneur in
higher education policy making.
123
Table 6
Leadership Traits Emphasized as Important to their Success by Study Participants
Leadership Trait
Adaptability
Authenticity/
Vision
Charisma
Confidence/
Diplomacy
Courage
Decision-Making
Humility
Integrity
Openmindedness
Optimism
Passion
Patience
Perseverance
Risk-Taking
Showboating
Social Acuity
Thick-skinned
Trusting of
Others
Trustworthy
Willingness to
Compromise
Select Supporting Text Segment
You’ve got to adapt to the change and that you’re going to do the things that you
did 15 years ago, it won’t work. (Dr. McCall)
What people are looking for, how they’re going to address more mission and
fewer resources, so I think to an extent that you’re authentic and you’re visionary
with the field. (Dr. Bumphis)
Participant interviews were enjoyable conversations, and through them the
researcher developed a sense of personal connection and respect for each
participant. It is this subjective experience as “evidence” for this trait.
These women who are strong leaders, not overbearing, but strong leaders who are
diplomatic people and…make good relationships with people as part of being a
strong leader have been instructive with me, I try to emulate. (Dr. Bell)
Having the courage to plow through and take ownership of it and take leadership
of it and be the person that made the decisions. (Ms. Brand)
See by not making a decision, you’re making a decision not to act, right? So you
can say, “Oh, I’m not going to make a decision, yes or no,” well that’s a decision
to do nothing. (Dr. Mullin)
Whether they’re people who report to me, I consider them members of whatever
team I’m on, because everybody has their own expertise and I’m not any more
special than anybody else is. (Dr. Johnstone)
I made an enemy, but also tried to be honest and forthright, and a little
provocative. (Dr. Longanecker)
Open-minded about working with those who are politically opposite, than to be
unwilling to bend due to political stance. (Dr. Whitfield)
I’m probably an eternal optimist. (Dr. Ignash)
You really have to have that passion everyday to address these issues…there’s no
shortage of passion there to find policy solutions to help students succeed in
college. (Kenneth)
You have to have a certain amount of patience to understand that there’s a longerterm goal in terms of creating strong partnerships or relationships and that it’s
worth it, even though it’s going to add a lot of time to whatever you’re doing.
(Ms. Brand)
I’m thinking how hard I fought on, or either fought equally hard, on things I lost
on, really fought hard on these. (Mr. Baime)
You have to be ready to take that risk and walk through the laws, make the case,
have the paperwork done, have the research there, have the students advocating
and do everything you can to get the policy changes through. (Dr. Kanter)
You have to have an inclination, as well, I think, to showboat on occasion. (Dr.
Longanecker)
Being good with people is a big part of what we do. (Mr. Baime)
Being able to have thick skin, because you know that no matter what position you
take there’s going to be somebody whose going to be shooting arrows at it, you
know? And to not take it personally. (Dr. Wheelan)
I genuinely believe that people have their heart in the right places. (Dr. Bell)
What it takes to actually get into them, is trust…people have to see you, know
you, interact with you, drink with you. They have to trust you before you’re
allowed into the space. (Ms. Washington)
Policy is the art of compromise. (Ms. Conklin)
124
Leadership style. The leadership styles of the policy entrepreneurs in this study
comprise a tight set of seven identified styles. All participants exhibited more than one
style. All participants in this study also demonstrated a collaborative leadership style, so
this can be considered the dominant style. For example, Dr. O’Banion might be
considered a maverick, but he also demonstrated that he is collaborative, developmental,
and a team-builder. More research is needed to determine if this is an exclusive set of
leadership styles found among policy entrepreneurs in higher education.
Table 7
Leadership Styles Emphasized as Important to their Success by Study Participants
Leadership Style
Collaborative
We are always struggling to make sure that, number one, our voices are
heard, but then number two, whenever possible that we try to speak with one
voice. (Dr. Bumphis)
Developmental
To grow state agency policy staff, I think, takes very intentional mentoring,
and so I’ve tried to build that into what we do here in terms of professional
development opportunities. (Dr. Ignash)
Empowering
I work, try and operate, by what I think is, an empowerment framework,
where it’s not about me exerting power, it’s about me empowering other
people. (Dr. Mullin)
Maverick
In many ways I am a maverick marching to my own drummer. (Dr.
O’Banion)
Servant
That’s a moment in my life where I think, you know, I demonstrated some
leadership, took care of the people around us, made things better, worked
hard. (Dr. Thompson)
Situational
Understanding the circumstance that you’re involved in, and it may demand
somebody stepping forward and saying, “Okay, somebody needs to lead this
parade and I’m willing to do that…and let’s go.” But, but the most value that
I’m able to add to a certain situation is for me to not step into that role, but to
provide a support role, and I think it’s understanding how you position
yourself as a leader is as important as always being the leader. (Mr. Ovel)
Team-builder
I just sort of felt really proud of the group, because they have developed and
gelled as a team, which was my goal all year long was, you know, I really
want us to be a team. (Dr. Walsh)
125
Leadership skills. The work of parsing out leadership skills from the data in this
study revealed a specific skillset among the policy entrepreneurs in this study (see Table
8). Communication skills were emphasized by participants as being extremely important
to their success and developing good listening skills in particular was stressed. Listening
as a leadership skill implies making room for others to participate in policy discourse and
suggests that policy solutions come from a variety of sources. Being open to hearing
others’ ideas by stepping back and listen, therefore, facilitates policy formulation and
solution-finding. Visualization skills emphasized included the need to not only produce
high quality print documents that looked professionally produced, but they information
could be conveyed graphically in ways that told a powerful story or could send a clear,
distinct, and strong message regarding a policy issue, idea, or solution.
However, it is important to note that not every participant enumerated all of the skills
below as important. Emergent policy entrepreneurs did not report delegating as a critical
leadership skill, for example, not surprising given that they have less time in the field and
positions that may not supervise staff. Further, it was found that resource development is
context specific, in other words policy entrepreneurs only need to perform resource
development if they are responsible for doing so, particularly if they are head of their
organization and that organization is donor or grant dependent. Relatedly, Ms. Conklin
offered: “I think that most of the policy work that people who do now is funded by
grants, so there’s some value in grant writing.”
It is very possible that additional leadership skills might be identified in a similar
study with a larger sample size. This set of leadership skills sets a benchmark for further
research.
126
Table 8
Leadership Skills Emphasized as Important to their Success by Study Participants
Leadership Skill
Communication –
Visualization
“What makes a good infograph?” because you need to be able to
communicate information very quickly. (Ms. Conklin)
Communication – Good
Listening
The ability to listen, to listen real well….But you need to be able to listen,
analyze and, and then come back and make sure you heard, and that you reheard, and they heard you, about where you want to take your own position.
(Dr. Bumphis)
Speaking
If you’re not able to stand in front of a group whether it’s two people or 2,000
people and communicate your message…you won’t be successful. (Dr.
McCall)
Writing
I’ve had a few writing assignments when I was in graduate school like, “What
were your ideas for solving this problem?” You got to do it in two pages or
less and, you know, it’s sort of speaking to making you be really succinct and
persuasive. (Dr. Bell)
Damage Control
Sometimes it ends up the most important things we do is the damage control,
when the wheels start coming off, you know. (Mr. Callan)
Data Analysis
People have got to speak data, and they have to speak data really, really well.
(Dr. Ignash)
Delegation
I’ll delegate…I’ll give it to somebody else, and you’ve got to be careful.
Because if you do that too much, you’ll whipsaw your organization. (Dr.
Ignash)
Environmental
Scanning
Data gathering skills, and you reading the landscape…knowing the politics of
what’s possible to pull off given the political environment in which you are
working. (Dr. Wheelan)
Negotiation
I worked in the governor's office, for a Republican governor, and we did not
necessarily agree on all the issues. But that was a great experience on how to
sort of negotiate and navigate through different and sometimes difficult
landscapes. (Ms. Washington)
Resource Development
I have to generate the money to do the things I want to do. (Dr. Katsinas)
Storytelling
That part of being able to help tell that story, that’s been a fun piece and I
enjoy it, and I’ve had the privilege of working with absolutely top-notch
students here that I’m able to work with and teach how also…what we’re
going to story tell…I feel very good about what I’ve been able to do with
that. (Dr. Katsinas)
127
Political skills. As an educational leadership study, this study is unique in that it
parsed out a distinct set of political skills (see Table 9) important to the work of the
policy entrepreneurs in higher education that participated in this study, in addition to the
previously identified leadership skills. Political skills are identified as such because they
pertain to how the participants relate to others in the governmental structure in the United
States, versus how they relate to general organizational structure, or general leadership
relationships with peers and subordinates.
Not unsurprisingly, the collaborative leadership style of this study’s participants
led many of them to suggest that being respectful, demonstrating bipartisanship, and
accepting diversity were required political skills. As an extension of this concept and in
relation to their role as coalition builders, networking was emphasized as a critical
political skill by all of the participants in this study. As policy entrepreneurs, being able
to recognize windows of opportunity by being present, identifying targets, and being
ready, were also emphasized by most participants.
Not every participant acknowledged lobbying skills as important to their work,
and for others lobbying behaviors were couched in more palatable language such as
relationship building and government relations. Similarly to the identified leadership
skill of damage control, is the identified political skill of showing restraint. Both of these
skills ultimately are not about creating and advocating policy as proactive activities, but
rather more defensively trying to controlling policy making, remove problematic policy,
or simply know when to walk away and try another strategy.
Minimization of political partisanship. Almost all participants reported the
necessity to put their personal political affiliations aside, which are public for some and
128
private for others, in order to be successful in their work. Listening to others’ first, being
open-minded, and being willing to compromise were the most frequently cited skills and
traits related to this finding. Having patience and perseverance was also frequently cited.
These skills and traits enable policy entrepreneurs to avoid unnecessary ideological
conflict with those across the political spectrum so that all could focus on policy solutions
that have common appeal. This process, however, generally takes several years.
Dr. Kanter shared:
I think you have to be willing to listen to the opposition or listen to better ideas
than you had and not be so wedded to the one thing you want to do that you
would not risk maybe even doing something better because you had the input
from a variety of perspectives that could actually make it better.
129
Table 9
Political Skills Emphasized as Important to their Success by Study Participants
Political Skill
Accepting Diversity
People skills…the ability to work with a large variety of peoples and
understanding…they have their own sandbox that they play in… (Dr.
McCall)
Being Present
Just by showing up and being an intelligent part of the conversation, you
could make a difference in influencing some of the policy pieces to go
forward. (Dr. Kanter)
Being Ready
You have to be ready to jump at a chance to speak with them. (Dr. Whitfield)
Being Respectful
Whenever possible, you really don’t want to demonize the other person. (Mr.
Baime)
Building Coalitions
But I think part of advocacy in government relations is building relationships
and building coalitions, so when the stars do align that you have everything
prepared and that you’re able to advance the legislation. (Kenneth)
Demonstrating
Bipartisanship
I’ve been at this long enough now to know that the minority party has been
the majority party, and it will be again, and you just, you can’t ignore
anybody. (Mr. Ovel)
Identifying Targets
The relationships that you have to build are with key players who would
advance the legislation. (Kenneth)
Lobbying
We spend as much time lobbying other lobbyists as we do lobbying
legislators. And sometimes we have to lobby our own people that pay…us to
do the work we’re doing. (Mr. Ovel)
Networking
Networking is an important part of it, but…not for like the social climbing,
like moving up the job ladder type thing, or from the, you know, stuff for my
work and my policy, but more from an opportunity to have conversations and
to learn…what’s important for me is it establishes opportunities for future
engagement. (Dr. Mullin)
Policy Language
Translation
Become versant in the language of policymakers, as well as the language of
the academy, and the ability to translate. For lack of a better term, you just
have to be multilingual. Understand, not just in the words and in terms of art,
but in the incentives. (Mr. Reindl)
Recognizing Windows
of Opportunity
You almost develop a sixth sense in a way as to what’s emerging out
there…you know what the issues are in the state, where you’re presently at in
terms of policy and where are the political environment may lead to policy.
(Jamelia)
Showing Restraint
Because conflict is so much an inevitable part of this environment, you can
really make things worse if you just keep talking and pushing. (Dr. Ignash)
Values. Participants in this study all expressed a strong, externally directed
values system oriented to improving others’ lives through access to affordable and
relevant higher education. Their values motivated them and shaped the focus of their
130
work. As Jamelia stated, they operate “from a high set of moral standards and ethics.”
This is not an unexpected finding, but helps to reinforce the unique role of the policy
entrepreneur in higher education as distinct from a lobbyist that can be hired to advocate
for a policy solution. It also suggests a servant leadership style that additional research
could shed more light on.
Some policy entrepreneurs participate in lobbying activities themselves, but they
own their policy solutions. Others actually hire lobbyists, but work along side them to
promote their own solutions. Lobbying is euphemistically referred to as government
relations, so the accuracy of the lobbying activity claims is difficult to judge. Certainly
some lobbying comes in the form of soft lobbying that involves relationship building
without policy discussion. Regardless, they consistently advocate for policy innovations
designed to improve access, affordability, relevance, and quality of higher education.
And this is the key, that their externally-oriented set of values guides their work.
It’s also important to mention that all participants emphasized that the focus of
their work is on impact to students, whether it be creating opportunities and benefits
through higher education opportunities, or removing barriers to access. Students—before
institutions, organizations, and leadership—was consistently stressed as the focus of their
work at state and national levels.
Self-sacrifice. Several participants in this study reflected on the sacrifices that
they needed to make in order to persist in their careers. Some policy entrepreneurs noted
the support and flexibility of their spouses. One female participant noted that their career
trajectory climbed once their children were young adults and they were more able to
focus on their professional work. A few female participants noted the challenge of
131
having young children, but did not indicate that their opportunities were fewer, only that
they had more to balance and manage in their lives. This sentiment is supported by
Bagilhole and White (2013) in their examination of the career trajectories of female
senior university administrators. In this study, a male participant indicated that work and
hobby are one and the same, his sacrifice was one of personal pursuits, but given his
strong passion for his work, did not express feeling that he was missing out on anything
in his life. Several more mature participants expressed that family was extremely
important to them, finding balance and time for their spouses and children were
paramount to their feelings of success and satisfaction, as was caring for their physical
and mental health. Since age data were not collected in this study, the researcher cannot
make a definitive conclusion, but based on age estimates gleaned from cv/resume college
graduation dates, it appears that self-sacrifice is a more salient concept for younger, more
emergent participants, though not consistently so.
Humor. Policy entrepreneurs shared a healthy dose of humor during their
interviews. Humor is a sign of intelligence and seems to be a factor in individuals’ verbal
creativity (Greengross & Miller, 2011), and supports the assertion that policy
entrepreneurs in higher education are creative individuals. It also points to participants’
charisma, a traditional leadership trait, although humor alone is no singular indication of
charisma. And example from Dr. Wheelan who laughed a lot during her interview when
asked about what she see’s herself doing next in her career indicated a positive nature and
a flair for humor: “Long term, I said that I either want to be a rent-a-prez, to go in and fill
in, or a bartender. I have two degrees in psychology, so…”
132
Table 10
Values Set Expressed by Study Participants
Value
Citizen
Engagement
I think that everybody needs to be a contributing citizen. (Ms. Washington)
Credibility
You go to work everyday, you do a good job, work hard, and build your
credibility. (Dr. Mullin)
Democracy
We need people to have a bigger perception about why we have higher education
and what’s its role, and what a democratic society is. (Mr. Callan)
Diversity
We also need more diversity in the policy making system. There is still a strong
White, male dominance. (Dr. Whitfield)
Do No Harm
Part of the philosophy when you have this kind of job is “do no harm.” (Jamelia)
Equity
Justice
I enjoy both the policy aspect of it, which carries with it a strong element of doing
the right thing, which sometimes people forget…government is about…on some
theoretical level…equity and justice and just serving the public… (Mr. Baime)
Go the Extra Mile
Just always go the extra mile. If you do that in everything that you do, you’ll
never have to apply for a job the rest of your life. (Mr. Ovel)
Honesty
I’m as honest as I can be with folks because I’m really not trying to push an
agenda on people. (Ms. Washington)
Humor
Wait until you see my next piece—a study on the impact of Community College
Curmudgeons; I will probably never be allowed to play in this town again. The
League will publish it soon. (Dr. O’Banion)
Life Balance
Have a balanced life. I find that people who don’t tend to become boring, and so I
work pretty hard. I play pretty hard, too. (Dr. Longanecker)
Responsibility
What does that mean about the responsibilities and the way we carry them out for
American higher institutions? What about, you know, the democratic institutions
and patterns, what’s our responsibility there? And where are we part of the
problem? (Mr. Callan)
Self-Sacrifice
Most every single one of the provosts at every campus has my personal cell phone
number. (Dr. Ignash)
Student-centered
How is this idea going to translate to students? How is this money going to
actually demonstrate that students will achieve at higher level or have access to
better schools or, become more competitive to earn a family-sustaining wage?
(Dr. Kanter)
Teamwork
I am the ultimate, you know, team builder, compromise guy, “Let’s figure out, at
the end of the day, how can we make this work as well as possible.” (Mr. Ovel)
Trustworthiness
I think one of the things that I learned was to develop alliances and that…with
those alliances people knew that they could trust me. (Jamelia)
Motivation. The policy entrepreneurs in this study were motivated by the ideals
found in their value sets; equity, justice, making a difference in the lives of others but
133
also by the variety of their work-a-day lives. Dr. Mullin’s motivation, for example, came
from a problem solving perspective that evolved out of his experiences teaching in the
New York City public school system leading him to pursue a doctorate in educational
leadership. He was motivated to solve problems regarding service to children from the
education system that evolved to wanting to solve problems for adults in education. For
him, work is like play: “My hobby is higher ed stuff.”
Dr. Ignash stated that her motivation stems from “get[ting] to build
something…the complexity of it…the collaboration role” and that it’s “many faceted.”
“There’s nothing else like it,” she concluded. Dr. Katsinas shared: “we like to think that
we’re developing policy related research for a population that’s not well considered in
national public policy circles and that is the motivating factor.” He added: “You have to
really have a strong value system and internal motivation.” Dr. Johnstone offered: “I’m
naturally curious…I have a strong motivation to leave behind more than was there when I
left.” Dr. Longanecker stated:
…part of what has attracted me to the SHEO jobs, to the job with the department,
and then to this, is I really like both…I consider myself a policy wonk, and I
really like the policy work, and policy analysis, but I also like program
administration, and I really like to try and find ways in which you can improve the
delivery of services…and all three of those jobs included sort of a nice nuance
between the policy agenda, and helping to establish a policy agenda, and coming
up with their policy, and trying to both promote and then implement programs
that themselves improve access in quality in higher education. And that’s my
passion…I have long felt that we needed to do a better job of getting a larger
134
share of the disenfranchised into higher education, and that we needed to make
sure that they got a quality education while we did that, so that’s what has driven
me, but I really have liked these jobs because they include both a good mix of
management and leadership. And then the other thing I would say is that…and
it’s been true at all of those, that you really do get a chance to work on the full
array of issues that are facing higher education…and I like that. It doesn’t allow
you, in some cases, to get as deep into some of those as you would like, but at
least you get a chance every day to work on a lot different things, and I find that
both challenging and invigorating.
Mr. Ovel explained:
What I like about higher education is the community college cut of that sector, of
higher education. It is absolutely the most energizing, it’s where, in my opinion,
where real innovation, entrepreneurship, really creative stuff is going on.
Dr. O’Banion’s motivation was simply, “The driving force to make a difference.” This
was reflected by Dr. Bumphis:
The opportunities to influence policy, to influence practice for our nation’s 2-year
community and general colleges has just been a culmination of my life’s work. I
have been interested in community college work for a little over 40 years. I’ve
had just a marvelous run. It’s been such a privilege to lead and work in our
nation’s community colleges that I can’t even describe how much, how rewarding
it’s been to make a difference in a whole lot of lives.
Kenneth disclosed that:
135
…working at a national level I get to see so much of the higher education
landscape, all 50 states, the federal government, as well as so many different
policy issues, just around a whole spectrum of challenges that are facing higher
education. So it can be, on one day it can be developmental education or policies
related to HBCUs, Federal Pell Grants, everything. So there’s just so much
diversity that I really enjoy.
Jamelia shared:
What I like most is that I’m using my knowledge and skills to impact policy as an
expert in the field…and that I’m educating young people about policy and the
importance of policy. And it’s very hard to get them interested in it. And by
teaching I’ve been able to move, to draw students into this arena and have them
engage in research with me. And that’s very exciting to see where my students
now are…I see them emerging and there’s a potential of state and national
leadership on the part of some of my students.
Creative problem solving. Given the role of the policy entrepreneur as problem
solver, it follows that demonstrating problem solving behaviors would be a natural next
step. Creative problem solving in comprised of a set of activities that when done in
sequence, or relatively so, can help an organization move beyond a difficult challenge.
Creative problem solving (CPS) has several stages. No participant spoke of the CPS
process as a complete system, but many mentioned certain stages in their work that leads
the researcher to conclude that this may have theoretical fit and is worthy of further
investigation.
136
Dr. O’Banion stated that his role includes that of problem solver. He appreciates
“the constant opportunity to solve problems and create solutions, a number of which have
actually worked.” Dr. O’Banion’s humor and humility mask the impact of his work. He
shared his role in problem solving as an idea-generator: “I spend 90% of my time
thinking about ideas and figuring out ways they can be implemented.” Dr. O’Banion
summarized his process:
First I create an overall conceptual design. Then I think of the key players who
can help me expand the idea and critique it or connect me with other networks. I
call on a handful of trusted friends who will give me honest critiques of my ideas
and plans. Once my plan forms and is often tested on others I begin to look for
the resources to put it into play.
Not all policy entrepreneurs are involved in problem solving as a policy
formulation and implementation function; those who do, are typically at the mastery level
like Dr. O’Banion is. Ms. Brand explained:
I actually do a lot more reading and scanning reports and trying to pick up, you
know, what’s emerging across the country, where there are concerns, where there
appears to be a lot of interest focused and trying to figure out why is that and
what’s driving that and then how can we help inform the policies to improve
outcomes for young people.
Ms. Brand’s work in this example is mess-finding and problem-finding. Dr. Walsh
shared:
I look for the outliers. So I’m really influenced by, as they say, the positive
deviants. So who are the kind of nuttiest presidents that nobody else is really
137
talking about or hanging out with...But they’re making stuff happen...And they’re
below the radar, because they’re so busy doing the work, they’re not out
promoting themselves.
She was describing idea-finding by looking for those who have innovative policy in
progress. Mr. Reindl described how his role forces him, and others like him, to ask
important questions in the policy formulation and problem solving functions of their
positions:
It’s helping people to understand “what does an institution have to do change?”
That sometimes is a very non-starter conversation first for the institutional world,
but also for the politicians it’s more, “Look at who’s going to be coming to you
looking for education and ask yourself this question; Do you expect that the
institutions, and ways that you are providing the education now, are necessarily
going to meet those students’ needs?” In many cases yes, but in a lot of cases no,
and if the answer’s no then “What do we need to do differently and how do we
provide the right incentive for that to be done?”
Questions such as those posed by Mr. Reindl can help begin the process of solutionfinding, a critical stage in the creative problem solving process for policy entrepreneurs
who help shape policy making through the formulation of policy solutions.
Networking. Unlike the problem solving behaviors, networking was found to be
a behavior that every participant engaged in and valued. A few of the many examples
participants shared during their interviews follow. These excerpts demonstrate how
networking is employed to establish and build relationships and collaborative teams,
138
support peer mentoring and give and receive feedback and information, build coalitions,
and align coalitions for action.
Ms. Brand offered:
Certainly over the years, you know, I’ve had many, many personal relationships
and some have just been unbelievably valuable for all kinds of things. And you
look back on those; you know, you think, “oh, great that I knew that person or
that I cultivated him/her or she/he cultivated me, or we just hit it off and it worked
out that way.” You know, a lot of those relationships have been both professional
and personal too…over the years, a lot of the people I’ve worked with have
become very good friends, so when they call and ask a favor I’m more than happy
to help them any way I can….We actually focus very heavily on networking and
building sound relationships in the organization because I’ve always strongly
believed that policy doesn’t get done just because of one person. Again, it takes a
lot of people talking about the same ideas to advance them, and so it’s important
to have partners and others to help promote the messages that you want.
Mr. Reindl related a broader perspective of networking:
There’s a network of folks that I’ve supervised and worked with over the years,
and we continue to cross paths professionally…The interesting thing about it is
that you often think of mentoring as almost a generational thing where it’s
somebody that’s more experienced and older…is really mentoring somebody
that’s younger and less experienced. In our case, in the network that I’m part of,
it’s a lot of us that are essentially close to the same age. We came of age together
and started roughly the same time here in DC, and have worked in organizations
139
that work with each other. And so, you’ve got this group of 40-somethings that
we get together occasionally or we see each other at conferences. We just have
this culture or this way of interacting that we help each other solve problems,
connect each other, we’re in it together, and that for us is mentoring in a way that
maybe other people wouldn’t define it…The places where we are when I think
about our network, there are people who are in consulting firms, there are people
who are in foundations, there are people who are in state agencies, non-profit
associations…and that’s the power of the group. We bring different perspectives
to the same set of issues, and also different contacts and different networks of just,
individuals, so that we can help people get in touch with or collaborate with
people who have the experience that they’re looking for, or who have access to
the information that they need to be effective, whether the issue is outcome-based
funding or whether it’s student financial aid or whether it’s multi-state data
systems.
Dr. O’Banion unveiled:
I am constantly alert to what is happening and what is new. Every week I scan
my environment through my network of friends and resources, and I often make
brief notes on issues I want to dig into deeper…I have never had much staff help,
and for the past 14 years none. I use the Internet to stay abreast of trends (The
recent Community College Source and the work from the Community College
Research Center are my primary resources) and my network of friends. I have
always had friends who “feed” me material they know I will resonate with.
Kenneth expounded:
140
Politics is the art of the possible and things that were possible in 2009 when there
were complete Democrats’ control of the House and Senate and the Presidency,
things that happen in 2009 and 2010, those things, those options aren’t available
to us right now, and vice versa if Republicans were in charge. So you have to
assess the political reality of the day and really, I think, have, for lack of a better
word, your ducks in a row for when the policy window does open. So, for
instance we just put out a report on the privatization of public higher education
and it’s a federal grant program that incentivizes the states to continue to invest in
public higher education. And we’ve shopped it around to The Hill, we don’t
expect it to pass this session and it could take a much longer period. But I think
part of advocacy in government relations is building relationships and building
coalitions. So when the stars do align that you have everything prepared and that
you’re able to advance the legislation. But…you have to take advantage of that,
key thing is you have to be prepared for when that opportunity is available to
really move forward and to have all of the problems addressed beforehand…
Jamelia stressed:
I use my network all the time. You know, all the time…and I don’t know how to
describe it. Networking is very important. Networking is very important, you
know, and then being able to just pick up the phone and call somebody, and they
know who you are….If I hear something going on in the state, I at least know one
person in every state….I learned…to develop alliances and that…with those
alliances people knew that they could trust me…I have this small number of
141
people that I knew, that if I talk to them that it would be confidential, and you
have to have that.
Dr. Thompson discussed his focus on relationship building in Iowa:
I still got those great relationships with legislators from Southwest Iowa so you
kind of broaden your scope and, you know, those are things that I think that make
the biggest difference. I’ve seen people that have lobbied for other purposes that
have taken a really poor approach and been confrontational and said “this needs to
happen, why are you doing this?” It doesn’t work. You have to have that
relationship and have that trust developed and you’ve got to be able to ask them
sometimes the tough questions, but that becomes so much easier when you know
them well and you have that common relationship in place already.
Data use and dissemination. The role of the policy entrepreneur in higher
education as information disseminator by the participants in this study implies that they
have learned to collect and use data to help shape policy and influence policy-makers.
Every participant shared some of their personal wisdom regarding how they use data in
their work. Dr. Callan shared:
I think you kind of need to demonstrate the validity of the problem...and what you
want to do to solve it, so you really want to be well rounded analytically to
be...uh, you know, to be effective. I think that, storytelling, I mean, I think that
that’s critical, but at the same time if you don’t have a, storytelling is how more
people figure out whether something is important or not...and also who, who it is
important to, so...I think maybe a little of the narrative of how the world is
changing and kind of look for things from all the different aspects; the colleges,
142
the families, for certain, I think you’ve gotta do that, that can’t be, you
know...numbers don’t convince, you know, they don’t move people, it doesn’t get
them to a point where they are willing to listen or to argue.
Dr. Kanter proffered: “I think more and more policy people look at everything, including
social media...you have to figure out how to leverage social network, communications,
and PR.” She also asserted: “You have to be a good listener. I think a lot of people don’t
listen. That’s what they don't understand. Usually in the opposition there’s some kernels
of wisdom there.” Dr. Walsh’s own communication strategy is unique:
I like to work with the folks who are like, “OK, I vaguely want it,” you know, like
they’ve seen me somewhere, I don’t even know where. And then they’ll say,
“Ooh, could you come talk?” So, I’m looking for the people that are, they don’t
have to aligned, but they have to be open to a conversation, and so that’s what I
look for. Now you can contrast that with my colleagues, who actively will look
for opportunities and we have kind of a communications machine that’s actively
looking for opportunities to go out and speak. And the way that most of them
speak and the things they like to speak about, and I’d say this is true of probably
most of our team, is the basics of our strategy and it actually is quite a bit of
quantitative data. I would say far less story telling.
Dr. Mullin stressed:
First and foremost with data you have to be credible, and so, you know, things
that, um…there’s a lot of people who know a lot of stuff, you know, and the most
important thing in policy circles is to build your own credibility. And so, you
know, if people don’t trust what you’re saying, then no matter how hard you try in
143
what you say, people aren’t going to listen. I mean, you’re going to marginalize
yourself. And so people try so hard to be like, you know, do research and be
statistically significant and…no, do a good job, you know, that’s, that’s the
bottom line. If you find some things that [are] significant, great; if you don’t,
great; but if you did a solid study, then you do a solid study and that’s the end of
it.
Dr. Wheelan offered her perspective as an information bridge: “I’m the go to
person to find out who to go to...I may not have the information but I know where to find
it.” Ms. Brand stated:
My job has become I think more of an assimilator of information in some ways.
We work in a number of different areas, and so a lot of what I feel I need to do is
to have a pulse of really what’s happening in; you know, just a broader policy
sense, just understanding of what some of the trends are, where people are
headed, and being able to think about what’s coming next.
Ms. Washington shared:
On a “normal” day, I could do anything from meeting with legislators, visiting
community organizations or foundations, attending conferences, and sometimes
even presenting at conferences. I do a myriad of different things to disseminate
information to stakeholders including organizing site visits and webinars because,
really, I envision myself as, the sort of clean up crew, I do whatever is necessary
to increase awareness.
Dr. Ignash’s perspective focuses on a balance between technical accuracy and
storytelling:
144
Communicating...I think, is a huge—potentially undervalued—part of this job.
As academics, you know, we focus on accuracy. You can be highly accurate, but
if people tune you out, it doesn’t accomplish your purpose. So, crafting the
message, boiling down to the essence of what it is that you’re about, for the
amount of time people are willing to give you, those are all important components
of communication. Ultimately, there’s a bit of tension between the academic side
and the communications side—and then truth sometimes is in the middle.
She also shared:
I don’t think you can be effective in these policy jobs anymore without a real
visceral...almost a meaty understanding of what the data is, how it’s defined,
where it comes from, how they put it together, and the kind of analysis you’re
using to make your case.
For Kenneth use of data is situational:
it’s kind of a trade off at the national level. You get to be kind of a mile wide and
an inch deep. And when you’re at the state level or at the institutional level,
you’re, you’re quite deep, but you’re not very wide. So there’s a trade off
there...we also do a lot of work with the media. So we’re talking and breaking
down the issues of the day with reporters. And we do that at newspapers and
media outlets throughout the country and we’re on radio programs. So, so we
definitely, you know, have a dialog with the public...We started [Twitter] several
years ago and, and we’re, we’re approaching I think like 4,000 Twitter followers
now, so it’s been effective in the sense that we can get our message out to a
broader audience that goes beyond the Beltway, that goes beyond higher
145
education organizations. And so regular people can kind of see what we do
everyday, what the issues are, and we can engage to some extent with regular
people through this, this new medium. So we really like it. We found a lot of
value in it.
Jamelia offered:
Policy makers are not going to pick up CCJRP. They’re not going to pick up
Research in Higher Ed...you need to get your information out and be it, you
know, your universities, public relations office....When you do or show a report
that, that it is distributed widely, that they post it on the Web. It takes a lot of
work...I’ve gone to the University of [blinded]...because they have built over time
the capacity to distribute...You have Columbia, you have the University of
Illinois, Iowa State publishes research and policy briefs.
Sub-research Question c
The next research sub-question asked: What strategies do they use to overcome
barriers to higher education policy innovation? Strategies include being inclusive and
bipartisan in approach to working with others, policy-focused communication that
translates a concise message, knowing one’s audience and targeting one’s message, and
learning to use new technology and social media to disseminate information. Other
strategies include credible data analysis and storytelling, planning and preparation, taking
advantage of windows of opportunity, and more nuanced activities including evasive and
defensive postures when appropriate and done with tact. These were used in tandem with
leadership and political skills for effective application.
146
Mr. Baime explained the importance of being inclusive despite areas of power
concentration, because even junior members or minority members of governance or an
agency can be allies. Several participants who asserted that this strategy helps protect
against resistance to a policy idea or solution by gaining early buy-in echoed this.
Another participant asked for this warning to be blinded, “somebody can torpedo things
that you’ve been working on very hard for a very long time.” Mr. Ovel stated: “We do
our work in a very, very nonpartisan, bipartisan way. You’ve got a lot of, lot of firms and
organizations and associations, even those associated with higher ed or education in
general.”
Using effective communication skills is also strategic. It’s important for the
policy entrepreneurs in this study to use the language of policy-makers, and translate data
into stories that can move them into action, as one participant shared:
Sometimes you can’t necessarily quantify the impact of something, but it does
become just an argument of “is this right?” I mean, “who cares what the numbers
are, does this make sense, is it fair?” So there is that aspect of that and there’s an
aspect of the anecdote too…sort of described this morning in a negative way as
kind of a tyranny of the anecdote, but definitely that can influence policy-makers.
(Mr. Baime)
Getting policy-makers to listen, make space and time to hear one’s message is
critical of course. Dr. Katsinas rhetorically asked: “So one of the issues is, how do you
get to be in the hallway?” to make the point that face time is important. This face time is
achievable and participants make deliberate attempts. If the message is well crafted,
agenda setting is enabled, as Dr. Bell explained:
147
We get it in the hands of policy makers in a number of ways. One is we have
monthly meetings that we have to go present before the legislative members of
the Commission of Education Accountability which meets every month, it’s not
during the legislative session, and we get to semi set the agenda. There are
certain things that they make us present on, but then we get to set the agenda, and
so if…we’re working on something I can advocate that, like, you know, “I think
we should present this…” and present this information on such-and-such initiative
that we’re doing, or the finding that we had before…
She will also take a more direct and personal approach when necessary, which indicates a
willingness to take some risks: “I’ll show up in somebody’s office and ask would they
have a few minutes and talk to them about it. And that’s a, a good way of…it’s hard to
say no in person…” Another notable strategy is availability. Dr. Ignash makes herself
available to her stakeholders 24/7: “There’s no sacred time,” she stated.
Ms. Conklin suggested that anyone interested in making a difference in policy
needed to be highly active on social media, such as Twitter, and Dr. Kanter, Kenneth, and
others agreed. Ms. Brand explained how learning to use social media and shifting her
organization’s target for relationship building are two strategies important for her
success:
We’ve had to learn how to use social media to communicate, and that’s certainly
something that all of us have had to learn how to do. I think going along with
that, it’s how you communicate well through different forms of media, whereas
almost everything we used to do was face-to-face or long publications that you
would send a copy to all the important people and they would read it. That, of
148
course, isn’t the way the world works, so we’ve had to adjust how we provide
material to people, and learn how to make it more relevant to their decision
making process.
We’ve also had to spend; because, because Congress isn’t doing very
much, we’ve also had to work more closely with the states because there is a lot
of policies that happen at the state level, and so in the last 10 years we have really
spent much more time working with state leaders, which required us all to learn a
lot more about state policies, where before we were pretty much focused on
national and federal policies.
Her strategic shift indicates that it is she who needs to bend to the needs of policymakers, not the other way around. Successful policy entrepreneurs, as Mr. Reindl and
others elucidated, learn to translate their data analysis, particularly if it is academic in
nature, to concise information that can be received and understood readily by the
decision-makers in the higher education policy arena.
Every participant in some form or another mentioned data as a strategic tool.
Most agreed that use of descriptive quantitative analysis supplemented by qualitative
supporting data were particularly effective. “My belief is you have the data first and you
supplement it with the stories. You put the human face on it.” (Jamelia). Jamelia also
mentioned that she only takes on projects that are manageable, and she is willing to shop
her data around to find the right fit for what she has to offer, implying persistence,
knowing one’s audience, and understanding that her policy ideas and solutions have to
meet a perceived need are key strategies.
149
Political strategy was a more challenging finding to glean from participants, either
because of a lack of trust with the researcher, the concern that their effective strategies
would become public in the sharing through this study, or just a lack of time to explain in
detail how they strategize in this way. It was noted, at least, as an important aspect of
their work. Dr. Kanter offered: “You’ve got to think through the opposition. That should
be a no brainer.” Mr. Ovel stated:
…You’ve got to come back and, you know, think it through, “Ok, what didn’t
work this time? Was it a content issue? Was it we didn’t have the right people
involved? Or it was just the timing wasn’t right”…we’re doing that every day.
We do that every day. Every day we know who we need to go talk to on a
particular topic, and we’re trying to promote or advocate or lobby. And we divvy
up that workload and then we just attack it every day.
Relatedly, persistence can help when pursuing a strategy, as Dr. Whitfield shared:
I think everyone feels at times like they worked hard to prepare, and advocate,
and then it falls on deaf ears. That’s just a part of the job. It’s hard; you have to
keep trying. Perseverance is very important; it takes time. You have to keep
repeating, keep bringing your point up, you never know when the audience will
change or finally listen.
Further, Mr. Callan explained:
If you don’t have a political strategy, no matter how well you do everything else,
someone’s going to eat you. So, it doesn’t mean that you have to be a political,
but…I don’t mean to be an opportunist, I think all of your decisions, you are
trying to advance an agenda and a set of values and every decision you make has
150
to be about that, I mean…who you hire and what your agenda is, and what you
cover, and where you go, who you talk to, all of that are, should just be purposeful
and strategic even though some of it is trying to, you know, [find] unforeseen
opportunities as well.
Jamelia asserted:
My strategy is reflective, not for me to write a policy brief really. Not in
isolation, I have a purpose in mind and that is I want to impact the policy. I don’t
want to direct it but I want to provide those who are going to be developing
policy, the information to be making informed decisions. And so that’s what you
do. We are not policy makers in the academy. Our job is to work to ensure that
those who do make policy are well informed. And then also to give them the
tools by which they can evaluate any of the responses or strategies that are
developed or policy that’s developed, so that they can make an informed decision
regarding whether or not they’re not going to vote on it.
She added later on in her interview:
Sometimes I’m all over the board, you know. I got this going, this going, this
going. I’m not as highly focused as some people. You know they’re only
focused on this little narrow thing. No. No. You know, I think policy doesn’t
work that way. You got things happening that are impacting students…access
and completion. Then you have programmatic issues. They need to have
programs that are tied to national industry skills credentials or those that, you
know, the articulation of the AA to a BA. Then you have all the finance issues.
Then you have the structural issues. You know, you may focus on one of those
151
broad areas, but I find that a lot of academicians are very narrowly focused, very
narrowly focused.
A major strategy is based on the political skill of recognizing windows of
opportunity. “You have to assess the political reality of the day and really I think have,
for lack of a better word, your ducks in a row for when the policy window does open,”
Kenneth stated.
Ms. Conklin illuminated a strategy that she valued in a colleague that illustrates
the skill involved in taking advantage of windows of opportunity, as well as the essence
of courage and risk-taking, through this story:
I really learned a lesson when I was in the department from Bob Shireman. So,
you know, Margaret opened up Neg Reg, as she needed to do…I remember that
Shireman at the time, thought that, knew how important Neg Reg was for policy
making and how little oversight it had in terms of just public sunshine and light
on, like, a Congressional hearing, or markup of a bill. This is like this obscure
thing that 40 people in the room do. So he created t-shirts and slogans and
stacked every single public hearing with people, and he pushed his issue. And so
by the time where you’re fairly going through all the “public comment,” I put that
in parenthesis or quotes, two thirds of the public comment is pulling, totally
ginned up, by the policy entrepreneur, Bob Shireman, who totally got that that
was a window of opportunity. Did Margaret open it for Bob? Heck no, but he
knew once it was open “I’m going to shove my thing in it.” It was completely a
non-sequitur. We were laughing at it. But I was like, “this guy’s a master.”
152
Sometimes, effective strategy involves a more nuanced approach, as suggested by
Dr. Mullin:
You’ve got to figure out when to fight a battle, and when to kind of let it just let it
die on its own, you know. A lot, a lot of policy proposals come out all the time,
and they’ll die on their own because you just…if you don’t pay attention to it,
then there’s no conflict. Like my brother who is a filmmaker says, you know,
conflict drives the narrative. So if you don’t create conflict, if you just let
somebody say something, and you just let it fall on deaf ears…then it just dies,
right? That’s a strategy: you just let people say something and say, “Okay,” and
you leave. And if you don’t fight them on it, then nobody pays attention, you
know?
On the other hand, he proffered:
So every once in a while, at the right moment…at the right situation, you do, it’s
strategic and it’s smart to stand up for yourself and kind of push back. And so at
the federal level, or at the national level, like, I know people and their angle and
their bend, so as soon as they put a paper out, like I said…I have a good idea of
how they got to where they’ve gotten, and if I read their study, I can pretty much
disassemble it to the point where I know what they did to kind of the get the
answer they wanted to. And if they want to push back on that, I can push back
and say, “Well, you know, yes, but did you know that you,” for example, “didn’t
include everybody who didn’t take out their loan, so the average loan rate’s high,
but if you only talk about 10% of people, that that’s not really a big deal,” and I
can discredit their work completely without going overboard.
153
In this way, Dr. Mullin, like others, notes the important of using data in offense
and defense of one’s position, but also with intelligence and tact. Push back does not
mean embarrassing your opponent, but respectfully disagreeing and presenting another
way to see and understand the data. Even strategizing against policy is a way of
effectively pushing forward on one’s own agenda, as Jamelia stated: “Sometimes you can
guide the process to preempt a move, that might have negative consequences. And I
know that may sound wishy-washy but often that’s what you do.” Mr. Callan too, noted
the need for damage control and Ms. Conklin shared the same.
Sub-research Question d
The last research sub-question asked: How do they gain and develop the skills and
strategies needed to be successful? Several participants noted an academic background
that was directly related to their current profession, and this was corroborated by analysis
of their cv/resumes, but they also responded that they received more preparation on the
job than in their academic programs. All participants noted that they developed most of
their skillset on the job from various experiences throughout their career, typically from
early positions. Ms. Conklin shared that learning on the job part of her experience, as it
was for all other participants:
How do you know the work enough to be able to integrate multiple pieces and
say, “OK, here’s, this is what we’re doing on the ground, what research says.
Here’s one page of things to think about.” What they taught me at NGA is to
write for the web. And that was, of course, right when the web was coming on,
…But now, it’s write for tweets…we’re not trained to do that in grad school.
154
“You know, I really learned about policy by learning on the job,” Jamelia stated.
For Dr. Johnstone, it’s all about “learning by doing” which is reflected in her professional
focus on advocating for competency-based education.
One notable exception came from Dr. Longanecker:
I think there were some other things that also helped on the
leadership…particularly the time I spent at Stanford and the faculty there. I
mean, James March who’s a…ah, hell, he’s a Nobel Laureate…he spends on his
courses, he spent a lot of time in his work on leadership, and in understanding
leadership. Now, leadership is something you can be instructed in but it’s more
than instruction. You have to sort of have an inclination, as well, I think, to be, to
showboat on occasion and…I think really, to some extent, more important were
some of the content areas and the connections, and the understandings, in the
various areas. One of the neat things about the program at Stanford was that we
were required, in the first year, to take courses in economics, and political
science, and sociology, and history, and each of those, from different professors,
were tied together so that at the end you sort of understood how from the history
of higher education, how the economics had evolved over time in higher
education and then like first, there was a professor in political science, how the
political science system sort of played with the economic models, and then a
tremendous resources there, in terms of organizational behavior, and how
organizations behave from Jim March to Bridges, really some of the leaders in the
country in that area, so that sort of academic component, really was very
155
important to me, and some of those professors were the mentors that…were very
significant in my life’s work.
Dr. Bumphis offered:
One of the things that’s been good for my development, I understand it was a plus
when they hired me, was that I had worked [at] all levels in the institution. I had
been at rural institutions, urban institutions, as well as suburban institutions, and I
have worked in student affairs, academic affairs, and administrative services. So
I’ve been all across the institution.
Most were also able to identify mentors who were often supervisors, but
occasionally peers. A small number of participants noted that they also learn from their
peer network and have developed together despite being in positions across the country.
This evidence of the preponderance of informal learning in the preparation of policy
entrepreneurs in higher education was also found in experienced participants who now
mentor others coming up in the field. Mr. Callan recalled:
I had a lot of people help me, and you know, the time was very different, back
then you had a lot of firms in higher education and a lot of it was centered in
California especially in Berkley where Clark Kerr was running the Carnegie
Commission. And there were a lot of big policy organizations, and things going
on in the country, and most of those people were reasonably, fairly generous.
Dr. Walsh noted regarding a former supervisor: “she took me under her wing and she let
me trail around with her and then kind of let me loose on the world.” Dr. McCall shared:
There were some wonderful mentors that encouraged me. There were people that,
you know, they just saw, I guess, potential and capabilities and they liked the
156
work that I was doing and…very encouraging. And so it was a combination of
those people that, along with my own interest in it, that led me to that path…It
was clearly, mentors [were] a critical part of my career path.
No evidence was found for the application of an apprenticeship model for
understanding the development of the policy entrepreneur, but mentoring was evident.
For example, Dr. Katsinas described how he was guided by a mentor:
…when I was a young person, I had the privilege of working for the late Paul
Simon when he chaired the House Higher Ed Subcommittee before he went to the
Senate way back in the early 80s. And then I also, as I was finishing my
doctorate, I worked, or helped represent, my university in the Illinois General
Assembly. And so I actually was, you know, I had a front row seat, ringside seat,
to observe these processes. And that doesn’t happen to people as they go through
the tenure promotion stream, and most graduate students. So I was doing these
things in grad school.
Other participants made similar comments: “Particularly there have been some
really positive role models of women, who are in high leadership positions on campuses
in my state that have been influential for me” (Dr. Bell). “I was very fortunate to have a
number of folks I would consider to be mentors, to be good friends, and willing advisors
to me. And that helped me enormously” (Dr. Bumphis).
Most of the participants, especially those at the mastery level, who have learned
the intricacies of their profession over the years are now mentoring those who are coming
up behind them. These educational leaders are now in the position of giving versus
receiving the on-the-job support. Many do this informally; others have formally built it
157
into their positions, like Dr. Katsinas, Dr. Kanter, and Dr. Ignash. Dr. Katsinas shared an
example of how his mentoring also enabled hands-on experience for his students: “When
I started at Oklahoma State, I placed four different students with oversight committees of
the Congress, in my four years there.” Dr. Katsinas continues this tradition today: “I took
four of my students to the RCCA meeting in Washington.”
Dr. Johnstone takes a proactive approach to mentoring:
There’s people who come to my attention, you know, who are in their 30s and 40s
that are really good at what they do and when things arise that I think will be
useful to them I push them in that direction…you know, or help them have a
context on how they see it.
Mr. Ovel shared how he has also identified up-and-comers and even shares a special gift:
I’ve developed a booklet that I give to very, very special people, you know, the
folks graduating from high school or career changes, stuff that, they’re all based
on the works of Og Mandino who was an inspirational, kind of a personal
development, self-help kind of writer. But he, all of his stuff is written in the
form of short stories and, you know, I affectionately refer to this as the “secrets to
success.”
In summary, Dr. O’Banion noted: “As a leader I feel deeply responsible to
helping others who are aspiring leaders—it is just part of the code.” As educational
leaders in the policy making world, participants were thoughtful and reflective about their
own career development, and appreciative of those who helped them learn to be
successful. For them, mentoring is a natural fit with their own experiences, leadership
orientation, and the context within which they operate.
158
Emergent Findings
This last section shares the emergent findings that stood out among the data
supported by several of the participants’ interviews. Emergent findings came out of the
multilayered data coding process after several other coding passes were made such as
attribute and structural (including all a priori codes). Not every participant related
information that corroborates each emergent finding, but the analytical induction process
naturally drew out these themes for which data was collected that could not already by
explained by the a priori conceptual framework and related codes.
Self-identification as policy entrepreneur unclear. Many participants did not
indicate a preference or otherwise for the term policy entrepreneur in reference to their
professional identity. Some participants stated that they did not consider themselves
policy entrepreneurs despite having been vetted as such through document review and
expert panel validation, but proceeded to allow themselves to be interviewed once the
researcher explained the definition being used in this study. Those participants are
assumed to be accepting of the use of the term in relation to their own roles, of course,
but may not have given themselves this label. Most participants were very willing and
ready to identify a handful of other individuals that they considered policy entrepreneurs
in their policy networks. This study does not, however, lead to any valid conclusion
regarding the size of the population, it is still pure speculation how many higher
education policy entrepreneurs operate throughout the country.
Lobbying inconsistently valued. Some participants disassociated themselves
with lobbyists in higher education policy making, while others specifically self-identified
as such. This inconsistency is somewhat surprising on the surface in that the researcher
159
suspected that policy entrepreneurs would all identify as something distinct from
lobbyists. Dr. McCall shared:
You know, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it
means lobbying’s been, you know, the mainstay, whether you agree or
disagree…or like it or dislike it, of the political scene….In Kentucky…the
legislation is clear, I do not have to register as a lobbyist…as a college president,
and if I did, I would…I’d have no problems with it…I don’t shy away from it. I
think it’s a play on words you know…lobbying is presenting your case to get the
best for your interest…I hire a lobbyist in Washington, DC…And I hire a lot of
paid lobbyists in Kentucky…we see it in the paper. It is what KCTCS spends on
lobbying…that’s part of what my job is…and it is what it is and, you know,
legislators know what lobbying is. I mean, there’s a lot of lobbyists and they
don’t shy away from that work. I know sometimes they don’t like us and
sometimes they do.
Dr. Thompson offered:
It’s a necessary part of our business and, you know, representing who we are and
what we do, with our legislators, our key decision makers, it’s how we make
progress and so, you know, I guess advocating maybe is a more politically correct
term, but it’s lobbying, yeah…You know, you call it lobbying…it’s really
relationship development, to be honest with you. That’s how I look at it,
lobbying’s just a term that I think is used, and we hire lobbyists.
On the other hand, Dr. Bell shared:
160
I found out very early on in some internship I did during college…that I was not
comfortable doing the more political stuff. I’m much more comfortable with
providing information that I feel like is good information for people to make
decisions based off of. I do not feel comfortable lobbying. I’m not comfortable
being on that political side of the house…And I don’t see it as, and sometimes we
do have an agenda, absolutely, but I guess I like to think that our agenda is more a
sort of data-driven agenda. It certainly is an agenda and I recognize that I have a
perspective that comes into play…but it’s a little different than just…than being
an actual policy maker or a lobbyist.
Preference for descriptive statistics. Several participants indicated that being
able to understand, use, and in some cases, create, descriptive statistical analysis was a
critical skill; however, there was also a strong contention that inferential statistics was not
useful or readily employed in their work. Quantitative data need to be easily understood
and inferential statistical analysis was a skill all participants noted was too abstract and
complex for the policy arena. Dr. Mullin explained:
In policy circles we deal with population data primarily anyways, you know, we
used descriptive statistics, and that’s okay, because there’s no way, for example,
you can determine the impact of Pell Grant program. Why? Because you have
institutional granted programs, you have state granted programs; you have
interventions at this college level and campus level. So you’re never going to be
able to say that…and so people, when they sit there and run these fancy statistical
models, and I used I see them and just kind of chuckle to myself…there’s no way
that you can say that this caused this, do you know what I mean? And people
161
want to say that all the time. Did the program…did losing your own Pell cause
that? No, it didn’t cause that.
Dr. Whitfield shared that quantitative and qualitative research are both important and
agrees that policy entrepreneurs do not usually need to perform statistical regression
analysis. She shared that she ran a regression analysis early on in career and her
supervisor said that if she could explain it without using the word regression, then she
could use it in her analysis; she chose not to run such analyses after that experience. Dr.
Bell would agree:
I think our graduate programs totally emphasize more than anything…it tends to
be rigorous research, when a lot of that is really difficult to translate into
informing policy makers and things that tend to be much more effective are
descriptive statistics delivered in the right way, sliced the right way, visualized the
right way.
Potential gender imbalance. Female policy entrepreneurs were readily referred
to the researcher by male participants and seemed to enjoy a career path that rivaled that
of their male counterparts. Notably, most women in this study had reached only vice,
deputy, or assistance status versus most males who had reached senior positions within
their respective organizations. This may be explained by the relative age of participants
by gender, the females tending to be younger in this study, so time may not have yet
given them opportunity to climb to the top, but it is possible that there is a glass ceiling.
Ms. Brand’s comment suggests that she worked her way up to the top of her organization
after an early career start that did not have high expectations:
162
When I went to college there was—I graduated college in 1976—there was the
expectation that, as a woman, I would go to college, but there really wasn’t as
much of an expectation that I would have a career or work.
Women getting started today do not have do contend with the lower expectation in the
same way. Ms. Washington asserted that she didn’t feel that she had to work harder as a
woman in the policy world; she just had to work hard.
Dr. Whitfield suggested that an imbalance of power regarding gender existed in
her policy arena. Jamelia who early in her career noted that a male “peer” controlled the
money in her organization and she was somewhat beholden to him, acknowledging the
uneven power dynamic back then, also noted how having children shaped her work:
In 1990…I was reading the Chronicle and I saw where the [blinded] Foundation
had a national leadership program…and you could apply and I, and I didn’t know
that most people were kind of mentored by other people that had received these
fellowships. But I decided to apply…And I was awarded. I was one of 49 people
awarded a [blinded] Fellowship….And, you know, and that provided me with,
there was over a hundred thousand dollars over a three-year period to pursue a
professional development plan linked to something, a topic outside of my line of
work. It couldn’t be related to working with community colleges. And my issue
was, since I, I had two small children and really had to struggle with getting
quality child care and being able to afford child care…my topic was on policy,
you know, state or provincial policy providing quality affordable child care. And
so that then enabled me to travel internationally and to go to national conferences.
163
And there they have a structured leadership program, but it didn’t deal with
policy. You know, I really learned about policy by learning on the job.
Whether or not there is gender imbalance with regard to power and opportunity in this
field cannot be concluded from the data, but is worth future study given the comments
that some of the women in this study shared with the researcher.
Entry into the field. Participants were the most varied in their sharing of their
perspectives regarding entry into the field. Several noted the importance of having
attended a high reputation university, private or public, and that academic pedigree
helped them gain entry even if their academic programs were not directly related to their
work; this was corroborated by analysis of their cv/resumes. Others shared that for them
it was a matter of personal connections that helped them gain entry. Finally a few
participants noted that they took huge leaps of faith and entered into the field as entrylevel volunteers or low-paid interns to explore the career field and get a foot in the door.
Academic reputation still carries weight when experienced policy entrepreneurs are
hiring team members, but it was noted, that those with a diverse background of
employment experience who have demonstrated early development of certain skills,
writing and descriptive statistical analysis in particular, can come from any college or
university regardless of institutional reputation. Participants Mr. Callan, Dr. Kanter, Dr.
Walsh, and others noted fortunate accident. Dr. Mullin’s career path was “an indirect
path,” but one marked with thoughtful decisions when he had the freedom to choose
between opportunities, as Mr. Ovel and other participants also shared. Kenneth shared
that, “it was kind of a thing where I landed on it by accident and just kept kind of going
with it.”
164
Proving oneself by demonstrating high-caliber communication skills, being openminded and a good listener willing to learn, having patience, and being adequately
motivated to put in more time and make some self-sacrifices was a general theme
regarding entry shared by most participants. This seemed to be more salient for more
youthful participants. It should be noted that the participants did not discourage entry
and shared that it really takes an element of courage, a leap of faith, and commitment to
make it work if one is transferring out of graduate school or an academic career into
policy work. A few participants added that transitioning by honing skills in writing
policy briefs, volunteering on boards and committees that impact policy, and developing
new relationships and expanding social networks were useful approaches.
Dr. Walsh shared: “It’s really hard to work at a national level if you’ve only
worked at one institution in a single role, because it’s hard to bring perspective because
the perspective from your individual institution isn’t sufficient.” Mr. Baime offered this
advice:
By hook or by crook, they need to figure out a way to get a job here in town…in
this field. The jobs are really coveted jobs…for good reason I think, they are
really good jobs, they are interesting jobs…and I think if you have a degree from
a prestigious school…it might help you get an entry level job. I also believe that
you can, if you have a certain kind of ability and aptitude, that even without that
type of educational background, you can still be in this kind of work…There’s
just an incredible amount of luck involved…because it’s hard to break in, but if
you’re good, there’s actually a lot of opportunity in this field.
Dr. Bumphis suggested:
165
I would suggest the person actually come and visit with someone here in
Washington who works on policy and have a chance to take a look at it, up close
and personal, and make sure this is really what they want to do. And then
volunteer for one of, we have a number of commissions and counsels that work
on other things nationally, and then do that….You know, we are all up on
leadership and government, but I think sometimes we fail to realize the energy
that it takes.
Dr. O’Banion offered: “a policy outsider (whatever that is) can become an insider by
staking out the territory and making a statement. There are really no limits or rules on
who is an insider or outsider.” Jamelia, however, offered a very different perspective:
I believe that there are one or two major foundations that are the primary drivers
of national policy. Education policy, not just higher ed. And that those entities
that are receiving that, universities that receive funding from those foundations,
are often called upon to convene national groups, and it’s, I don’t want to call it
an old boy system cause they’re not all boys, but it’s, you know, it’s a closed
circle, and it’s very, very tough to break into that. Now, when I was a state
director I was invited to, because of my role, my position, to participate in those
meetings, and to share the…perspective of the practice, share the perspective of
the state, share the perspective of a predominantly rural state. But once I left that
position, you know, that door kind of closed…If you’re very close to the Beltway,
close proximity to DC, you are much more likely to be called upon as an expert.
166
Chapter Summary
The findings of this study suggest that the role of the policy entrepreneur in higher
education is similar to policy entrepreneurs in other domains. Policy entrepreneurs in this
study demonstrated the understanding and ability to build and maintain relationships and
coalitions and they learned how to recognize windows of opportunity and be prepared so
that when they open they are ready to act. Working in the policy arena of higher
education, many had enjoyed a generally collaborative work context until recently, and
have had to hone their political leadership skills to ensure that they can effectively reach
across the aisle to advocate for policy innovations. Through their work they help diffuse
policy across institutional and state borders. They know how to manage and analyze
data, craft a policy-friendly message, and have an abundance of patience, tact, and energy
to persevere.
One potential difference between policy entrepreneurs in higher education versus
in other policy domains may be their student-centered orientation and set of values that
helps to motivate them to work toward equity and justice in education, and all of the
benefits that education has to offer in terms of employment opportunity, civic
engagement, and quality of life. Without the advantage of comparative data from a set of
policy entrepreneurs in another policy domain, such as energy policy, the researcher
cannot make this conclusion, but rather suggests that this distinction may be made
through future studies. In Chapter 5, a comprehensive summary of findings, conclusions,
implications with recommendations for research and practice are discussed.
167
V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
Brief Review of the Problem
Policy-makers strive to implement policies designed to help our nation progress
economically and civically. In the process of legislating, they become experts on certain
policy issues, but still do not have all of the information and resources needed to
implement policy efficiently. Further, the incremental nature of policy reform due to the
complex nature of policy making process, sometimes referred to as the garbage can
model (Cohen et al., 1972), involves coalitions, imperfect information, power dynamics,
constituent demands, timing, luck, and a lot of skill.
A gap exists between knowledge makers and knowledge users in the policy
making system that can help creating openings for policy action. Policy entrepreneurs
who advocate for policy innovations can fill this gap. Mintrom and Vergari (1996)
asserted that the policy entrepreneurship model could help explain policy diffusion
(Berry & Berry, 1999) and implementation despite incrementalism (Lindblom, 1959,
1979). They ground their model in Sabatier’s (1988) advocacy coalition model.
The role of the policy entrepreneur as a change agent is not well understood
despite increasing research on their activities (Mintrom & Norman, 2009), due in part to
the case study nature of most research on this role, which can be limiting due to generally
small sample sizes, and has rarely appeared in the higher education literature (GoldrickRab & Shaw, 2007). The definition of what a policy entrepreneur is has also been
168
problematic for understanding this role as well as using it to study its characteristics
(King, 1990). Upon consideration of the definitions of policy entrepreneur from Walker
(1974), (Kingdon, 1984, 2011), Roberts and King (1991), Mintrom (1997), the researcher
defined policy entrepreneurs as experienced leaders, inside or outside the formal
innovation that has the potential to break through the barriers of incremental politics.
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study was to create a descriptive portrait of the successful
policy entrepreneur in the national and state higher education policy making arenas by (a)
identifying exemplar policy entrepreneurs who are advocating for, or who have
advocated for, higher education policy innovations in varying levels of policy arenas in
the United States; (b) cataloging their characteristics and behaviors; (c) determining how
they developed the qualities that make, or made, them successful (lasting in the field); (d)
identifying strategies they employ to overcome barriers to policy innovation; (e) and
helping to validate an original theoretical framework for understanding the policy
entrepreneur as creative political leader for use in future research. The following
research questions were directly drawn from this study’s purpose:
Review of the Study Design
The multifaceted conceptual framework and its dependent propositions
demonstrate the early use of bricolage in this descriptive, revelatory, single-case study
approach (Yin, 1994), selected from the postpositivist paradigm (Creswell, 2007).
Bricolage involves combining diverse approaches to a research question
169
(interdisciplinarity) resulting in a depth of analysis not otherwise achievable (Kincheloe,
2001). In this study, theoretical bricolage was ultimately employed as reflected in the
conceptual framework and propositions. Revelatory case studies allow the researcher to
examine phenomenon not already well investigated (Yin, 1994), which was appropriate
for this study of policy entrepreneurs in higher education, which does not come from a
rich literature (Goldrick-Rab & Shaw, 2007).
The research setting for this study was both national and state higher education
policy arenas, non-physical “locations” that radiate outward from Washington, DC and
include state capitals, policy centers, local institutions of higher education (public,
private, for-profit), and other locations that house professional associations and think
tanks around the nation, otherwise understood as the higher education policy subsystem
(Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988).
Policy entrepreneurs currently working in national and state levels of higher
education policy making were both the unit of analysis and participants of this study with
a focus on their traits, skills, behaviors, values and motivations. The researcher
employed a purposeful sampling approach using chain-referral technique (Erickson,
1979) in order to gain consent to interview 23 policy entrepreneurs identified through a
phase 1 document review process and vetted by a panel of policy experts. The sample
included low-, mid-, and high-level policy entrepreneurs with at least three years of
experience focus on advocating for policy innovations who currently work in a variety of
government offices, professional associations, and private sector agencies (two
participants have since retired, one of which still works in the field part-time). 12 men
and 11 women were interviewed, a majority of them White (n = 18; persons of color n =
170
4; unknown race/ethnicity = 1). Along with semi-structured interviews, data collection
included retrieval of public documents in two phases, and requests for personal
bios/curriculum vitae/resumes. All data were collected for analysis and triangulation
between April and October 2014 (see Appendix H for a list of the documents reviewed in
this study).
A multi-layered coding process was employed to aid in reliability and
replicability (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Saldaña, 2013). The postpositivist paradigm and
the researcher’s role as an outsider demarcate analysis from a somewhat etic approach
that also leaves room for interpretation and questioning. While mitigation of any
personal bias that might have been placed inward and onto the data analysis and
interpretation from the researcher’s external frame was attempted, it cannot be
completely removed from the analysis.
Limitations
This study’s limitations include the researcher’s role as a policy outsider and
small case study design that forced the use of chain-referral sampling a suspected lack of
representativeness of the study sample against the larger population—given the
completely unknown parameters of this population. The researcher used expert panel
feedback, analytic memos, and interviewer debrief interviews to help mitigate bias, but
this cannot be fully eliminated. Coding introduced another layer of bias; another
researcher might glean different findings through their subjective interpretation.
The researcher sought out disconfirming evidence as a way to refine and
strengthen concepts with good fit with the data and to eliminate concepts simply not
supported by the data; however, this case study does not include analysis of
171
disconfirming cases and is a notable limitation of this study. In addition, this study relied
upon self-reported data that cannot be independently verified and a case study research
design that suggests, but does not guarantee transferability of findings.
Delimitations
In order to control the size of this study, the sample size was limited to a
maximum of 24 participants focused on broad-based policy innovations. In addition,
local and institutional policy innovations were out of the scope of this study unless they
were being introduced at the national or state levels for broader adoption.
Summary of Findings
Chapter 4 presented the findings organized by the research questions, and are
summarized here along with emergent findings.
Context. Participants in this study had various approaches to contextual
challenges shaped by their personal schema. Dr. Kanter asserted: “We can apply our
research knowledge to implement solutions in our complex system.”
This study found that the current political climate in the higher education arena is
generally contentious at the present time. Only a few years earlier, participants were
operating in an atmosphere of collaboration commenting that education is not a topic
over which policy-makers on either side of the aisle have much against. While how an
educational program should be implemented is debatable, it is generally accepted that
conservatives, liberals, and everything in between, can support education policy of some
sort. Lately, however, polarizing political climate at the federal level has infiltrate higher
education policy arena at all levels challenging the work of the policy entrepreneur and
forcing them to work a little differently. Complexity, tension, competition, and a sense
172
that the climate is “fragmented” (Dr. Walsh), and “in disarray” (Dr. Wheelan) was
pervasive among most participants. At least one, Dr. Longanecker, seemed to feel
excited and stimulated by the challenge of the call for innovation in this age, but also
acknowledged some of negative consequences of the simultaneous call for data,
transparency, and accountability which are not problematic in and of themselves, but are
complex issues to work through. Primary research question. What can be learned from successful policy
policy innovation in the United States? Answering this question only yields a tentative
response because the number of policy entrepreneurs in the study population has yet to be
quantified. Participants came from across the U.S. including Alabama, California,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and
Washington, DC, representing a variety of organizations focused on community colleges,
four-year colleges, and universities including professional associations, policy centers,
philanthropic organizations, consulting firms, governing and coordinating boards, and
universities. There was no alignment between education level (highest degree attained),
and longevity as a measure of success. Of the two “emergent” participants, one has a
master’s degree, the other a doctorate. If the four “established” participants, one has a
master’s degree and three have a doctorate. Of the two participants with a bachelor’s
degree as their highest level of attainment, both are “master” participants with over six
decades of experience between them.
Sub-research question a. What is their role in higher education policy making?
The literature suggests that policy entrepreneurs in general are agenda setters who
173
accomplish this through coalitions building, and through this help in the process of policy
diffusion. Participants are constantly looking for new ideas and information, sharing
ideas for best practices, and working with others to inform, formulate, plan, and
influence. Policy entrepreneurs in this study diffuse policy by building networks to
disseminate information by crafting policy-friendly messages; they analyze data to
identify policy problems and formulate policy solutions; they seek out windows of
opportunity to lobby and advocate for their policy solutions; and they advise and mentor
those in their networks—peers, novices, policy-makers, and the public.
Sub-research question b. What are their characteristics (i.e., leadership traits,
leadership skills, values, and motivation) and behaviors (i.a., problem solving,
networking, date use and dissemination)? Analysis of the participants’ interview
transcripts resulted in a cataloguing of their traits, skills, values and motivations as well
as a cataloguing of their leadership styles and a distinct set of political skills. The
researcher does not conceive of the leadership styles as being mutually exclusive, and did
not assign styles to participants. Such an analysis was out of the scope of this study.
Participants in this study all expressed a strong, externally directed values system
oriented to improving others’ lives, students of higher education specifically, through
access to affordable and relevant higher education. Motivation to take on the role of the
policy entrepreneur seems to be a function of participants value sets as well as the
excitement of the variety of their work-a-day lives in this fast-paced and ever-changing
field. A problem solving orientation to their role and activities was evident among
several, but not all participants. It appears to be a function of one’s position. Networking
174
was found to be a behavior that every participant engaged in and highly valued. Lastly,
data use and dissemination were emphasized as critical behaviors by participants.
Sub-research question c. What strategies do they use to overcome barriers to
higher education policy innovation? Policy entrepreneurs in this study shared several
general strategies including being inclusive and bipartisan in approach to working with
others, using policy-focused communication that translates a concise message, knowing
one’s audience and targeting one’s message, and learning how to use new technology and
social media to disseminate information and advocate for policy innovations.
Bipartisanship helps to decrease causes of conflict and help policy-makers come to
agreement. The policy entrepreneur as creative political leader does this in part by
defining problems, increasing perceived benefits, and maintaining higher goals that
appeal to all sides of a conflict (Nagel, 2001a). Credible data analysis and storytelling,
planning and preparation, taking advantage of windows of opportunity, and more
nuanced activities including evasive and defensive postures when appropriate and done
with tact were also cited by participants.
Sub-research question d. How do they gain and develop the skills and strategies
needed to be successful? Only a few participants shared the belief that their formal
academic preparation was directly related to their current profession, and this was
corroborated by analysis of their cv/resumes. All participants noted that they developed
most of their skillset on the job from various experiences throughout their career,
typically from early positions. All acknowledged mentors, often supervisors, but
occasionally peers, who impacted their career choices and professional development.
175
Emergent findings. Several emergent findings came out of the data. It is
important to note the limitation that the researcher drew out these findings from her
subjective lens, another researcher may have come to similar or different conclusions.
Self-identification as policy entrepreneur unclear. Many participants did not
indicate a preference or otherwise for the term policy entrepreneur in reference to their
professional identity; some even stated that they did not consider themselves policy
entrepreneurs. However, given that they proceeded to allow themselves to be
interviewed once the researcher explained the definition being used in this study,
participants are assumed to be accepting of the use of the term in relation to their own
roles. This may be a function of definition or a function of humility.
Lobbying inconsistently valued. It appears that most, if not all, of the participants
in this study lobby as an activity, but not all of them want to admit that they do or be
identified as a lobbyist. It is their values set that sets them apart from lobbyists for hire,
but that is an inadequate defense for those who are less “politically” oriented than others,
and the degree to which participants are politically oriented or inclined did differ widely
in this study.
Preference for descriptive statistics. Several participants indicated that being
able to understand, use, and in some cases create, descriptive statistical analysis was a
critical skill; however, there was also a strong contention that inferential statistics was not
useful in their work. Quantitative data needs to be easily understood and inferential
statistical analysis is too abstract and complex for quick and easy absorption into the
policy arena.
176
Potential gender imbalance. The researcher surmised that female participants
might have reported a power dynamic based on gender that impacted their work.
However, male participants readily referred female policy entrepreneurs to the researcher
and they seemed to enjoy a career path that rivaled that of their male counterparts, for the
most part. However, the research questions did not focus on the female participants’
experiences from a gendered perspective, as might be done in a phenomenological study,
so the researcher can only suggest that this is an area with opportunity for future research.
Most women in this study had reached only vice, deputy, or assistance status versus most
males who had reached senior positions within their respective organizations, but this
may be explained by the relative age of participants by gender, the females tending to be
younger in this study. Yet, it is possible that there is a glass ceiling.
Entry into the field. Participants were varied in their sharing of their perspectives
regarding entry into the field. Several noted the importance of having attended a high
reputation university, private or public, and that academic pedigree helped them gain
entry. Others shared that for them it was a matter of personal connections. Finally a few
participants noted that they took huge leaps of faith and entered into the field as entrylevel volunteers or low-paid interns to get a foot in the door.
Regardless of entry, needing to prove oneself by demonstrating high-caliber
communication skills, being open-minded and a good listener willing to learn, having
patience, and being adequately motivated to put in time and make sacrifices shared by
most participants. This seemed to be more salient for more youthful participants.
Participants did not discourage entry and offered that it courage, faith, and commitment if
one is transferring out of graduate school or an academic career into policy work. A few
177
participants added that transitioning by honing skills in writing policy briefs, volunteering
on boards and committees that impact policy, and developing new relationships and
expanding social networks were useful approaches.
Discussion
This case study sought in part to examine a series of propositions that stemmed
from the conceptual framework. What follows is discussion of the propositions and how
they inform, or do not inform the conceptual framework of this study. This is followed
by an explication of the revisions made to the conceptual framework as a result of the
examination of the propositions.
Proposition 1. Proposition 1 stated that policy entrepreneurs will demonstrate
leadership traits and skills that enable their success (longevity) in higher education policy
making. It became apparent that a specific set of traits and skills are found among the
policy entrepreneurs in higher education that participated in this study. All participants
demonstrated passion, commitment, perseverance, and open-mindedness. They
demonstrate some traditional notions of leadership traits such as: high intelligence
(especially interpersonal, defined as “an ability to recognize and understand other
people’s moods, desires, motivations, and intentions” [Davis, Christodoulou, Seider, &
Gardner, 2012, p. 7]); confidence and charisma; as well as leadership skills such as
effective listening; verbal; and written communication; visioning, and social acuity.
Cohen (2011) shared:
Displaying social acuity means that the entrepreneurs are well-versed in the
social-political context in which they are interacting and demonstrate high levels
of social acuity in understanding others and engaging in policy conversations.
178
Thus, the entrepreneur can identify “windows of opportunity” (Kingdon, 1984)
for introducing innovative policy within the existing social order. (p. 8)
Effective writing for a policy audience was a particularly noted skill shared by the
participants, as well as a solid, working knowledge of descriptive statistical analysis,
qualitative narrative or storytelling, organizational management, planning and
preparation, resource acquisition or development, networking and relationship building,
negotiation, environmental scanning (Aguilar, 1967; Morrison, 1992), and recognizing
windows of opportunity, which Dr. Kanter noted was a “critical” skill. All of these traits
and skills in the aggregate are not found elsewhere in the literature and could be domain
specific when taken on the whole, but it is challenging to tell what sets apart the traits and
skills of policy entrepreneurs in higher education, from those in other domains. Only
comparative research could begin to answer this question.
Overlapping traits are found in Martinez’ (2008) study of policy analysts in higher
education, such as quantitative and qualitative data analysis skills, writing skills for a
policy audience, awareness and understanding of political climate, professional
networking, and policy solution advocacy, but Martinez’ study does not distinctly define
a policy analyst against any other policy actor, and seems to be describing policy
entrepreneurs. Mintrom and Vergari (1996) noted that the role of the policy entrepreneur
was threefold:
discover unfulfilled needs and suggest innovative means to satisfy them…bear the
reputational…risks involved in pursuing actions that have uncertain
consequences. Third…resolve collective action problems by assembling and
179
coordinating networks of individuals and organizations that have the talents and
resources necessary to undertake change. (p. 422)
Mintrom and Vergari acknowledged policy entrepreneur behaviors, such as
strategizing and networking as well as traits including intellectual ability and tenacity.
For example, Dr. Katsinas asserted that policy entrepreneurs: “better have stamina,
energy, a lot of perseverance. They need to think of themselves as insurance salesman,
the doors are gonna get slammed in their face 19, before the 20th sale occurs.” In
addition, Mintrom (1997) shared that, “Contributors to the agenda setting literature
suggest policy entrepreneurs use several activities to promote their ideas. These include
identifying problems, networking in policy circles, shaping the terms of policy debates,
and building coalitions” (p. 739), again study participants shared these behaviors.
Cohen (2011) asserted that:
The policy entrepreneur is often characterized by taking actions intended to
reduce the perception of risk among decision makers. When they lead by
example—taking an idea and turning it into action themselves—the entrepreneurs
signal their genuine commitment to improved social outcomes. This can do a lot
to win credibility with others, and hence build momentum for change. (p. 9)
The characteristics of expertise and persistence were cited by Weissert (1991) as of
particular importance. This study accepted expertise as a given (in addition to
intelligence), but Weissert’s assertion should not be overlooked.
knowledge and use of a personal leadership values system. A set of values did emerge
among the participants this study that included: citizen engagement, credibility,
180
democracy, diversity, do no harm, equity, justice, go the extra mile, honesty, life balance,
responsibility, student-centered, teamwork, and trustworthiness. Participants were very
cognizant and reflective of their values and able to articulate that it was their values that
help shape their work. It may be that it is their values set that distinguishes them not only
from lobbyists, but from policy entrepreneurs in other policy domains as well.
Comparative research could shed light on this question.
Servant leadership was coined by Greenleaf (1977), “The Servant-Leader is
servant first….It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.
Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” (p. 7). According to Spears (1995)
and van Dierendonck (2011), some of the key traits of servant leadership that are similar
to leadership traits of policy entrepreneurs in this study include listening, persuasion,
stewardship, and commitment to the growth of others (in this case, students). Further,
Greenleaf (1991) asserted that servant leaders take “issue with the wide disparity between
the quality of society they know is reasonable and possible with available resources, and,
on the other hand, the actual performance of the whole range of institutions that exist to
serve society” (p. 81). This is a characteristic found in all of the participants in this study.
But the trait of emotional healer does not resonate with the portrait of the policy
entrepreneur in higher education as derived from the participants in this study. Defining
a leadership style that holds ethical values on high while also achieving policy goals in
the context of a complex political environment will require further study.
Proposition 3. Proposition 3 stated that policy entrepreneurs will fall within a
game player motivation quadrant that helps explain their motivation to foster policy
innovation in higher education. The researcher found no evidence of Radoff’s (2011)
181
game player motivations theory. While the economic game theory field is focused on
mathematical models that help predict players’ actions in both competitive and
cooperative “games,” Radoff’s model was a typology of game player’s motivation to
engage. The model was designed for actual video gamers, and then Radoff applied it to
the corporate world. Given higher education’s business model and capitalist foundation,
the researcher had surmised that policy entrepreneurs would have self-identified with one
the quadrants of Radoff’s model, but this proved to not be the case.
Ultimately the researcher needed to find an alternative motivation theory to
replace Radoff’s model. McClelland et al.’s (1953) and McClelland’s (1961)
achievement motivation theory appeared at first to have good fit with the concept of the
policy entrepreneur in higher education who seems to be centered on their needs for
achievement and affiliation, but whether or not they exhibit a need for power fell outside
the scope of this study. While it is not necessary to have all elements of McClelland’s
model apply, it suggests that a more focused approach to studying motivation is
warranted. Given the data in this study, a simple intrinsic-extrinsic model suffices.
Intrinsic motivation “refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or
enjoyable” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55). Several participants indicated that engaging in
higher education policy making was interesting and rewarding work.
use of techniques that align to stages in the CPS model in their policy solution
formulation, advocacy, and implementation activities. The CPS process includes the
following components: fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding,
acceptance-finding (Parnes, 1981), and mess-finding (Isaksen & Treffinger, 1985). CPS
182
is most useful when trying to solve a problem where existing solutions are no longer
viable or effective. It presumes that opportunities exist from which to formulate potential
solutions and it requires obtaining buy-in from stakeholders to achieve (Treffinger et al.,
1999).
This proposition found partial support, but remains inconclusive despite support
from literature (see Figure 2 and Peters (2010); Roberts & King, 1991). Roberts and
King identified problem solving functions of policy entrepreneurs, including generating
ideas, defining problems, selecting solutions, identifying alternatives, and acceptance
finding. No participant spoke of the CPS process as a complete system, but many
mentioned certain stages in their work that leads the researcher to conclude that this may
have theoretical fit and is worthy of further investigation. Engagement in CPS may also
be a function of position depending upon where a policy entrepreneur works. For
example, those in philanthropic organizations tend to look for innovative solutions while
those in professional associations focused more heavily on data analysis. While there
seems to be promise, further research is required to see if CPS and policy
entrepreneurship have good fit and strength.
knowledge and use of strategies in their work that can be understood through basic
principles of economic game theory. The general language of gaming, even political
gaming, was missing from participants’ narratives in this study. Policy entrepreneurs
take their work seriously and with a pragmatic attitude; they do not relate to game theory
and prefer to see themselves not as players, but as public advocates. Participants did
express the need to strategize and make decisions based on imperfect information, but
183
without a win-lose orientation. Policy entrepreneurs more frequently commented on the
goal to exchange information, find common ground, and compromise. Economic and/or
political gaming orientation is not an effective perspective for understanding the role of
the policy entrepreneur in higher education from the sample in this study. That being
said, it would be interesting to examine policy entrepreneurship with the process of the
adoption of a policy innovation as the unit of analysis and in doing so, a decision-tree
mapping and analysis from the perspective of economic game theory could be performed,
however, this is far out of the scope of this study and will remain a recommendation for
future research.
use of a variety of methods to collect and disseminate information in various policy
advocacy activities. The researcher surmised that the work of policy advocacy as
performed by policy entrepreneurs versus lobbyists revolved around effective use of data.
Data collection methods included use of networks and personal and professional
relationships, traditional and social media, data analysis of public data sets, and prepared
data from think tanks and associations. Listening skills also help policy entrepreneurs
gather data from a variety of stakeholders, and even opponents and detractors.
Information dissemination is equally varied with a trend in use of social media and tech
savvy infographics. Policy entrepreneurs see themselves as connectors and bridgers of
information who rely on credible data condensed into well-crafted products that both
inform and tell a story.
Nutley et al. (2008) introduced three ways that information impacts policy
processes: instrumentally (though direct application), conceptually (impact on
184
knowledge), and tactically (strategically). Complex political environments impact
information access and values and selection may, in turn, impact information usage
(Nutley et al., 2008). It is apparent from the data that the policy entrepreneurs in this
study used information and data instrumentally, conceptually, and tactically.
Kingdon (1984) asserted that policy entrepreneurs were subject matter experts,
skills negotiators with political connections and had the characteristic of persistence. All
of this helps the policy entrepreneur frame policy issues and solutions, and create buy-in
by softening-up the policy community within which they operate.
It cannot be denied that lobbying is partly an act of information sharing and
advocacy. Fang (2014) noted that lobbyists in general are moving “underground” due to
recent and this general Washington trend may be in the higher education policy making
arena as well.
A loophole-ridden law, poor enforcement, the development of increasingly
sophisticated strategies that enlist third-party validators and create faux-grassroots
campaigns, along with an Obama administration executive order that gave many
in the profession a disincentive to register—all of these forces have combined to
produce a near-total collapse of the system that was designed to keep tabs on
federal lobbying. (Fang, 2014, p. 2)
The nature of the work of the policy entrepreneur and their role in higher education
policy making as a knowledge networker makes the connection to lobbying
understandable, however, and certainly the communication skills and acceptance-finding
orientation to their work is shared by both identities (Mintrom & Vergari, 1996).
185
development of networks of relationships and use of their social networks to advance
their ideas. All data shared by participants suggest that this is a universal truth about
their role that is corroborated in the literature; however, Botterill (2013) suggested that
“while policy entrepreneurs can play an important role in the softening-up process and
can make progress incrementally as opportunities arise, policy still requires a level of
decisive political action” (p. 111) and asserted that “policy entrepreneurs cannot succeed
alone in achieving policy change, and raises the question as to whether the concept of
‘policy entrepreneurs’ is useful beyond being an appealing descriptor of influential but
not decisive agents in the policy process” (p. 97).
Participants in this study do not dispute this perspective, and perhaps how they are
defined should not focus on them as decision-makers, which Kingdon (1984, 2011),
Mintrom (1997), and others do not. This study confirms that policy entrepreneurs in this
study do contribute, and often, lead the softening-up process, but do so within a bounded
policy subsystem in collaboration with others. Simply because they don’t work alone,
does not make them less impactful as change agents, in fact they perceive their networks
to be at the core of their success in influencing policy-makers to adopt policy
innovations.
use of their traits and skills to respond to the pressures and challenges of the complex
political context in which they operate. Lowi (1964) asserted that policy making arenas
are distinct, allowing the researcher to surmise that policy entrepreneurs in higher
education face unique challenges and work in a context unlike that of other domains that
186
might shape their work in unique ways. Recent political climate shifts, however, have
polarized the nation and higher education is no exception. It is unclear if policy
entrepreneurs exhibit a unique or exclusive set of traits and skills than enable them to
meet the challenges of their work in higher education that is different than the work of
their counterparts in other domains, but what is evident is that those who do meet the
challenges, and can adapt in times of dramatic polarization, secure longevity in the field
enabling them to work to make a difference over the long haul.
“As suggested by Kingdon (1984), policy entrepreneurs must link the streams of
problems, policy, and to effect policy change” (Rinkus Thompson, 1994, p. 396).
Ferguson (2014) reflected in her editorial the stagnation of Congress felt by several study
participants. Participants in this study had various approaches to contextual challenges
shaped by their personal schema. Dr. Johnstone shared her approach that focuses on
listening and negotiation as an example:
I can outline something and give somebody a 10-minute lecture, but I never know
what they take away from it until they start asking questions, because they’re
framing what they heard in the context of what they already know. I don’t know
what they already know until then, so when I’m in an antagonistic group, I let
them raise their issues and then we try and deal with them as opposed to saying,
“Oh, no, no, no. You’ve got to think the way I think.”
Proposition 9. Policy entrepreneurs develop proficiency in their traits and skills
through a combination of learning processes, both deliberate and unintentional, in
response to the pressures and challenges of the political environment. While formal
education can help policy entrepreneurs intellectually, and perhaps even ideologically
187
prepare for their role, it is informal on-the-job training and mentorship that are the most
effective teachers regarding how they should engage in their work. Experience, peer and
supervisor feedback, private and sometimes public criticism, and reflection all play a role
for the participants in this study. Many of the participants held advanced or terminal
degrees, and just over half were in higher education administration or a related field, but
only a small number of academic programs included an experiential learning component
that introduced soon to be policy entrepreneurs to their daily work-a-day responsibility or
enabled them to practice relevant skill-building.
No evidence was found for the application of an apprenticeship model for
understanding the development of the policy entrepreneur, but mentoring was evident.
Jarvis’ (2006) comprehensive learning process model proved to be too complex to fit
with the data in this study, inadequate information was gathered regarding sensory input,
emotions, and reflection. Usher et al. (1997) experiential learning map may still apply,
but a more specifically designed study is needed to demonstrate fit. It is also unclear if
Schön’s (1987) reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action are applicable concepts;
again a more specifically designed study is required. Brant et al.’s (1993) five-phase
model of cognitive apprenticeship most certainly does not fit with the data in this study.
Fenwick’s (2003), approach to mentoring as broader guidance is certainly applicable,
especially given that some trial and error was expressed by several participants. Mentors
helped participants reflect and redirect actions when failure occurred, they provided
support, and role modeled effective skills. Lastly, it may be worth further investigation
to see if Bandura’s (1971) social learning theory is a good fit. “In the social learning
188
system, new patterns of behavior can be acquired through direct experience or by
observing the behavior of others” (Bandura, 1971, p. 3).
Interestingly, yet relating to learning and education from a contrasting position,
social learning theory has been connected to the literature on policy diffusion, which
implies a degree of learning, so synthesis of Bandura (1971) and Rogers (1995) might be
appropriate in helping to understand how policy entrepreneurs also educate others
through the role of policy diffuser.
Revised conceptual framework. Based on the data analysis performed in this
limited study, the researcher revised the a priori conceptual framework to reflect a more
nuanced understanding of the policy entrepreneur in higher education (see Figure 5).
Some concepts were removed due to a lack of supporting data, and others took their
place. The basic structure of the framework remains, but the conceptual pieces that make
up each quadrant are updated.
189
Creative Person:
-Distinct Set of
Leadership Traits & Skills
-Servant/Relational
Leadership Style
-Political Skills
-Externally-oriented
Values system
-Intrinsic Motivation
Creative Product:
-Adaptive vs. Innovative
Type of Policy
Innovation
Policy
Entrepreneurship
as Creative
Political
Leadership
Creative Press:
-Complex Political
Context
-Informal Learning
Processes: Mentoring &
On-the-Job Training
-Academic Pedigree
Creative Process:
-Creative ProblemSolving
-Knowledge
Networking
-Cooperative and
Compromising
Orientation to
Strategizing
-Face Time
Figure 5. A posteriori conceptual framework of the policy entrepreneur in the policy
domain of higher education.
Creative Person. The policy entrepreneur as creative person might be understood
as having a creative type based on their leadership traits and skills vis-à-vis Sternberg et
al. (2003), but this requires additional research to show evidence of fit. Leadership traits
and skills remain in the framework, and leadership style and political skills that were
identified in the data analysis were added to the framework.
190
Leadership traits identified included: adaptability, authenticity, charisma,
confidence, courage, decision-making, diplomacy, humility, integrity, open-mindedness,
optimism, passion, patience, perseverance, risk-taking, showboating, social acuity, Thickskinned, trusting of others, trustworthy, vision, and willingness to compromise. Each of
the participants displayed almost all of these leadership traits in different combination.
Leadership styles that came out of the data included: collaborative (working with
a flat hierarchy, all members valued), developmental (focused on development of
novices, staff, peers), empowering (externally focused on helping others help
themselves), maverick (willing to take risks, thick-skinned, and eccentric in
communication style), servant, situational (flexible leadership that adapts to the needs of
different situations, and team-builder (focused on development of trusting internal
relationships). Teamwork is an essential job function of policy actors (Mintrom, 2003).
Relational leadership may help provide an overarching approach to leadership style
among policy entrepreneur in this study because it relates to leadership efforts toward
accomplishing social change (Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998). This inclusive
model, however, is designed for application on college campuses, so a systematic review
would need to help determine if the model can be applied to policy entrepreneurship.
Further, “the existence of a decision-making elite—or more accurately, elites—is a fact
of political life” (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993, p. 9) which challenges the use of an
inclusive theory such as relational leadership. Despite these considerations, the
researcher suggests that consideration of relational, as well as servant, leadership styles is
appropriate based on the data collected.
191
Leadership skills specific to this group of policy entrepreneurs included:
communication skills including good listening, speaking, writing, and visualization,
damage control, data analysis, delegation, environmental scanning (Morrison, 1992),
negotiation, resource development, and storytelling. Political skills found among the
participants included: accepting diversity, being present, being ready, being respectful,
building coalitions, demonstrating bipartisanship, identifying targets, lobbying,
networking, policy language translation, recognizing windows of opportunity, and
showing restraint.
Policy entrepreneurs in this study operate “from a high set of moral standards and
ethics” (Jamelia), which reinforces the distinct role as opposed to mere lobbyist, although
lobbying as an activity of the policy entrepreneur was still very evident. Their values set
included: citizen engagement, credibility, democracy, diversity, do no harm, equity,
justice, go the extra mile, honesty, humor, life balance, responsibility, self-sacrifice,
student-centered, teamwork, and trustworthiness.
In addition, policy entrepreneurs have a definitive intrinsic motivation to not only
do no harm, but also explicitly benefit others, regardless of their political perspective.
Their belief that education is a key component to individual development and national
economic health is an important value shared by all participants. “Integrative public
leadership, defined as leadership necessary to bring ‘diverse groups and organizations
together in semi-permanent ways, and typically across sector boundaries, to remedy
complex public problems and achieve the common good’ (Crosby & Bryson, 2010b, p.
211)” (Sun & Anderson, 2012, p. 309) is worth examining for model fit as well. Their
externally-oriented set of values was modified in the framework. All policy
192
entrepreneurs in this study operate from intrinsic motivation and this too was modified in
the framework.
Creative press. Context shapes action for the participants in this study. The
complex political environment impacted policy entrepreneurial foci, forced them to
change or begin to change how they operated, and presented challenges that have helped
many of them gain skills for longevity in the field. This remains in the model as is.
Creative press now addresses informal learning as the primary mechanism for
skillset development among policy entrepreneurs in this study. This is not to say that
formal, academic programs do not contribute, and the researcher makes recommendations
for ways in which formal education can better foster the development of policy
entrepreneurs, but the data reflect that it is what is learned on the job that has made the
most difference in developing the skills valuable to the policy entrepreneur. In addition,
all participants mentioned specific mentors that helped them develop their talents and
skills along their career path. Both on-the-job training and mentoring have been added to
the framework.
The preponderance of informal learning in the preparation of policy entrepreneurs
in higher education was striking, especially since most participants held a doctorate, and
more than half held degrees in higher education administration or a related field. No
evidence was found for the application of an apprenticeship model for understanding the
development of the policy entrepreneur, but mentoring was evident. Mentors helped
participants reflect and redirect actions when failure occurred, they provided support, and
role modeled effective skills. Most of the participants, especially those at the mastery
level, who have learned the intricacies of their profession over the years are now
193
mentoring those who are coming up behind them, now being in the position of giving
versus receiving the on-the-job support. Many do this informally while others have
formally built it into their positions.
Academic pedigree in term of a terminal degree in higher education leadership or
related field was an attribute most participants had, yet success was certainly achievable
for those with lesser degrees who had become advisors and mentors to others, in addition
to achieving decades of success in their field. Academic pedigree was added to the
framework for further study and because it is suggestive of recommendations for
academic programs (discussed later).
Creative process. In the creative process quadrant, the data reflected policy
entrepreneurs’ use of creative problem solving skills, specific to the CPS model by
Isaksen and Treffinger (1985) that includes the stages of mess- (or problem-) finding,
data-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding, and acceptance-finding.
This is not an inflexible, linear process, and policy entrepreneurs used it in their natural
setting without awareness. Only policy entrepreneurs with a problem solving directive or
capacity in their position performed this function in some capacity is either a problemfinder, idea-generator, solution-finder, or acceptance-finder. Data analysis activities are
tied to problem-finding, which all participants engage in to some degree. Idea-generating
was also a frequently cited problem solving activity. Many participants strove to find
solutions, an objective noted by most of the participants, and trial and error is a factor in
this process. Policy entrepreneurs might work at different aspects of problem solving
simultaneously, and certainly, there efforts are not always fruitful, most often it takes
several years for them to see implementation of a policy innovation for which they had a
194
hand in formulating and advocating. Acceptance-finding activities focus attention on
gaining acceptance, or buy-in, for an idea or solution, and this was found to be very
important to the work of every participant. Much more research is needed to determine if
the CPS construct still fits comfortably in the overall framework, but for now based on
the data in this study, it remains.
Information dissemination was replaced in the framework with the concept of
knowledge networks (Phelps, Heidl, & Wadwha, 2012) as the data reflected use of social
networks to gain information as well as disseminate information, this is not the same as
advocacy coalitions and will need to be examined in future research for appropriateness
and fit. Certainly the literature has found that policy entrepreneurs are network
dependent (Heclo, 1978; Kingdon, 1984, 2011; Smith, 1991); they must “capitalize on
their connections, to establish and maintain supportive networks within their particular
policy communities (Schneider et al., 1995, p. 59).
Game strategizing was replaced with a cooperative and compromising orientation
to strategizing. Economic game theory was not supported by the data; policy
entrepreneurs do not use the language of economic, or even political gaming, and their
orientation was always to working toward center to find common ground versus a
conflict orientation despite the competitive environment for limited resources for higher
education policy solutions and reform. Participants did offer that approaching policy
making in a complex system from an open-minded, bipartisan, compromising approach
was the most effective, and really, the only approach, they took.
Face time, being present in the policy arena, was also added to the construct of
creative process because of the need to be available, present, travel, meet, and discuss
195
with policy actors and interact with the public was salient for all participants. This has
implications for the policy arena in which they choose to work, how they do their work,
how they develop their knowledge networks, and even how—for newcomers to the
field—how they might gain entry.
Creative product. Policy innovation as creative product is remains a concept
dependent upon acceptance of the definition of innovation as something new and useful
based upon the context in which it is developed and intended to be implemented. What
works in one state, may not in another; what is new to one region, may be well
established in the next.
While the construct remains, what is added is a dimension of type of policy
innovation. Participants acknowledged that in time of heightened complexity and
contentious politics, major policy innovation is greatly inhibited. This not only calls on
them to change how they work, and continue to persist, but also suggests that some
reform will be less innovative than others. Kirton’s (1976) adaption-innovation theory
may provide a way to measure the level of innovation of policy innovations. The theory
was developed and advanced as a way to typify creative thinking and problem solving,
and application to creative product would require novel thinking and original research.
Despite this issue, the idea that policy innovation could be measured against certain
criteria on a scale or continuum opens up opportunities to gain a better understanding of
the outcomes of the creative leadership of policy entrepreneurs in a variety of contexts.
196
Conclusions
In this section the conclusions of the study are followed by the implications of the
conclusions. This is followed by a descriptive portrait of the policy entrepreneur in
narrative form. Lastly, recommendations that address the implications are offered.
Three essential conclusions came out of this study:
1. Contextual and information gaps problematize the nature of the work of the policy
entrepreneur in higher education, and also shape the work of this unique role in
higher education policy making.
2. Sustainable and innovative policy reform, that is, policy innovation, is possible,
but it requires the traits and skills of the policy entrepreneur with the motivation
and value system to work for such change.
3. Effective and successful policy entrepreneurs can and need to be developed and
this development that is normatively occurring on the job can be more
deliberately driven through academic programs.
These conclusions are well-supported by the findings in Chapter 4 and the
summary and discussion in this chapter. To avoid redundancy discussion is limited to
what is next—what are the implications—of the findings and conclusions for policy
entrepreneurs, academics, and those looking to enter the field.
Implications for the development of policy entrepreneurs. The researcher
argues that policy innovation, as process and product, is needed in order to realize reform
in this challenging context, and requires a policy entrepreneur to do so. Further, “As
suggested by Kingdon (1984), policy entrepreneurs must link the streams of problems,
policy, and to effect policy change” (Rinkus Thompson, 1994, p. 396). These are
197
teachable skills as we have seen in this study and this has implications for the
encouragement of entry into the field, on-the-job training and development, and the
shaping of formal academic programs in higher education leadership and policy studies.
This study is unique in that the focus is on the policy entrepreneur as unit of
analysis and extends beyond their activities to their traits, skills, values, motivation, and
development in an effort to inform theory building and research on policy
entrepreneurship, higher education policy making, leadership theory in policy contexts,
and theoretical approaches to policy reform. The findings from this study also inform
those who wish to learn to engage in policy entrepreneurship and make their entrée into
the higher education policy making arena. For example, academic reputation still carries
weight when experienced policy entrepreneurs are hiring, but it was noted that candidates
with a diverse background of employment experience who have demonstrated
development of certain skills could come from any background. Fortunate accidents and
indirect pathways were career pathways for many participants, but several noted a fairly
intentional and planned pathway.
Implications for the practice of policy entrepreneurship. Past policy reforms
lead to the hope that significant policy innovation is possible, and can still occur, as
evidenced by emerging policy innovations that are focused on technology, open-access,
and the for-profit sector. However, within the complex political system and incremental
political context of the United States, policy innovation in higher education is predictably
rare and slow to arise (Lindblom, 1959, 1979). This can be frustrating for policy actors,
philanthropists, academics, and the general public who may have expectations of a more
198
rationalist approach to policy making in the U.S. As Lindblom and Woodhouse (1993)
emphasized:
...there are sharp constraints on what can be achieved through policy analysis and
other “rational” methods for understanding social problems; this is largely
because uncertainty and disagreement are fundamental facts of political life, facts
that cannot be wished away by even the most rigorous analysis. (p. vii)
Yet incrementalism as the product of “political participants [who] often limit themselves
to considering policies fairly close to the status quo” (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993, p.
27) does not preclude major policy reform.
Policy innovations are policy reforms that offer new and useful alternatives to
current policy problems within a particular policy context. Major, broad-based policy
innovations are a rare occurrence in the higher education policy arena (Paulson, 2007; St.
John et al., 2013; Zemsky, 2009), with minor, more local level policy innovations being
more common. This study suggests that policy entrepreneurship are policy actors able to
navigate the complex policy arena in which they operate in order to effect change by
drawing attention to policy issues and solutions and helping to set policy agendas. While
is it understood that context impacts the effectiveness of policy entrepreneurs (Mintrom
& Norman, 2009), and factors such as other individuals, groups, or coalitions; changes in
political climate; or even natural or man-made disasters that can shift the focus of
political agendas (Kingdon, 2011), the policy entrepreneur is active participant in a
network of policy actors that influence change.
Implications for future research. Researchers have called for additional studies
that compare successful and unsuccessful policy entrepreneurs, policy entrepreneurships
199
in various policy domains, the impact of policy entrepreneurs on innovation diffusion,
and policy networks that influence policy innovation and the role of policy entrepreneurs
in those networks (Mintrom, 1997; Mintrom & Norman, 2009; Roberts & King, 1991).
“Policy entrepreneurs have rarely been the focus of discussion in previous literature on
agenda setting and the policy-making process” (Mintrom, 1997, p. 741). As shown in the
literature review of this study, there has been an expansion of research on policy
entrepreneurship, not so in higher education, however.
This study contributes to the policy literature by having such a focus. Further, it
helps academics and graduate students looking to make a lasting impact on higher
education policy understand the role they can play as policy entrepreneurs; the traits to
hone, the skills to develop, and the strategies to employ to take a pragmatic, relevant, and
applied approach to their own work. This study is important, for without sustainable
higher education policy innovations, issues of access, affordability, and college
completion toward gainful employment will rarely be addressed resulting in policy
stagnation and the deepening of consequences for the American people and the nation’s
economy. The changing landscape of higher education creates challenges as well as
opportunities for policy entrepreneurs. Understanding how these opportunities can be
more quickly realized through the role of the policy entrepreneur in higher education fills
a major void in the literature (Goldrick-Rab & Shaw, 2007; Mintrom & Norman, 2009).
However, this study also leaves the reader with many questions.
A descriptive portrait of the policy entrepreneur in higher education. The
policy entrepreneur in higher education policy making is an intelligent, well-educated
policy actor, very likely with an advanced degree in higher education, who is motivated
200
by a unique values set to be a change agent in higher education. S/he is often White, but
works to improve the lives of all students in all sectors of higher education, with a focus
on students of low socioeconomic status and students of color who often face greater
challenges to access, retention, and completion of post-secondary credentials. As a
creative political leader his/her focus is on advocating for sustainable and innovative
policy. Sternberg et al.’s (2003) typology of creative leadership provided a useful lens to
understand how policy entrepreneurs work. A few in the study sample worked as
Redirectors who steered an organization in a new direction. Several are more likely to do
what others have done but find a new rationale for it (Redefiners), and move one step or a
small number of steps beyond where other leaders have gone (Forward incrementers)
using the past rather than the present as a starting point (Reconstructive redirectors). At
times, s/he starts from scratch (Reinitiators), and take what they believe are the best ideas
from different paradigms and put them together (Synthesizers). Simply, s/he is
adaptable, pragmatic on details of policy shaping, and uses the means available to
him/her to exert influence.
Personally, s/he is goal oriented, works to build relationships, avoids burning
bridges, and is network dependent. S/he adapts to changes in political climate and
maintains the appearance of bipartisan, or even non-partisan, affiliation so as to
communicate and connect disparate arguments and people in an effort to build strong,
trusting, and long-lasting coalitions of like-minded individuals and groups. S/he doesn’t
work alone.
The policy entrepreneur has a healthy dose of humor, and demonstrates
intelligence, creativity, and charisma. Despite her/his optimism to effect change, s/he
201
reflects on the sacrifices needed to be made in order to persist and be successful;
including the support and flexibility of his/her spouses and family. Having young
children forced her, but not him, to either wait until her children were young adults
before focusing on her professional work or having to work in a way that was carefully
balanced. S/he expresses that family is extremely important and that life balance is
paramount to her/his feelings of success and satisfaction, as was caring for his/her
physical and mental health.
The policy entrepreneur has a multitude of leadership and political skills honed
primarily on the job and from the wise council of trusted mentors. S/he is willing to take
calculated risks, and is generally optimistic and hopeful about the potential impact s/he
can make in tandem with his/her peers. S/he understands how important it is to develop
credibility through hard work, sacrifice, and consistently high-quality data analytics that
s/he has learned to present in easily digestible infographics, sound bites, policy briefs,
pitches, and appeals. S/he understands the importance of face time, of being present,
available, and accessible, and s/he can translate between the academic, policy, and public
worlds with ease; taking full advantage of social media, radio, and the Internet to plant
seeds, answer questions, and bridge knowledge makers to knowledge users.
S/he is a resource, advisor, expert, educator, connector, problem solver, policy
wonk, and diffuser of innovation. Yet despite his/her qualities s/he is not well understood
and often maligned as a mere for-hire lobbyist. Because of his/her articulate speaking
skills, effective writing, open, optimistic, and energetic nature and charisma, s/he is
comfortable advocating for solutions s/he can believe in and that s/he believes the nation
can believe in to a vast and diverse audience, although to save some energy for personal
202
priorities, she strives to understand and target her audiences. S/he may or may not shy
away from lobbying activities, but if s/he chooses not to lobby, s/he is sure to partner
with someone who is willing so that s/he can focus on strategizing, planning, preparing,
and scanning the environment for windows of opportunity, which s/he has been known to
create from time to time.
Inclusivity and bipartisanship assume that power shifts can change who controls
purse strings and decision-making, and policy entrepreneurs need to avoid taking sides so
that they do not wind up on the bottom of a power differential. The policy entrepreneur is
skilled at non-partisan communications.
Using effective communication skills is also strategic on other ways. The policy
entrepreneur is effective in using the language of policy-makers and translating data into
stories that inspire decision-making and action. Gaining access is critical and the policy
entrepreneur must be present—living in Washington, DC or their state capital—or being
willing to travel to get in face time. Direct, face-to-face contact is preferred when
building relationships with any and all stakeholders. Staying in touch at least over the
phone was acceptable for peer-to-peer relationships and making oneself accessible and
available is helpful, which connects a degree of self-sacrifice is required. The policy
entrepreneur has made good use of social media as a strategy and effective sharing of
credible data through use of infographics and other visuals and concise policy papers as
well. S/he also employs student testimonials and storytelling as other notable strategies.
Strategic thinking and planning around opposition and detractors, recognizing—
and even creating—windows of opportunity and planning how to take advantage of them,
and creative use of data in offense or defense of one’s position with intelligence and tact
203
are advanced skills the policy entrepreneur has developed. More nuanced strategies that
suggest an element of manipulation such as thwarting efforts of the opposition,
filibustering, and other tactics were mentioned as occasional activities, but only as last
resorts because they are competitive and essentially combative activities and policy
entrepreneurs prefer more collaborative, generative activities based on their value sets.
This is not her/his preferred modality.
The policy entrepreneur puts their personal political affiliations aside—public for
some and private for others—in order to be successful. They listen to others’ first, are
open-minded, willing to compromise, and have patience and perseverance. These skills
and traits enable policy entrepreneurs to avoid unnecessary ideological conflict with
those across the political spectrum so that all could focus on policy solutions that have
common appeal.
The policy entrepreneur is adept at information dissemination and is comfortable
working in a variety of modalities. In some cases s/he collect the data, or does so through
staffers, peers, and/or formal partnerships. Sharing information with and through the
media to get the attention of the public and policy-makers is an objective for her/him,
primarily those working in one of the Big Six or other professional associations. Use of
social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook, and general Internet blogs, are useful
to the policy entrepreneur.
Policy analysis, data analysis, and translating that data into descriptive, easily
digestible chunks are all a part of the role of the policy entrepreneur. S/he has learned to
craft a message in a way that is absorbable by the policy community, in other words
reframing. Aside from data analysis and translation, getting the information to policy-
204
makers through staffers and legislators themselves in some cases, is another role of the
policy entrepreneur, in other words, s/he lobbies. Working in teams, with different roles
allocated to peers such as establishing regular meetings with legislators, planning
strategy, creating a new connection, crafting the message, and so on, enables her/him to
work in tandem to gain access, especially face time, with policy decision-makers and
staffers who can be as critical to connect with as legislators themselves due to the
advisory and liaison role of the legislative staffer. In turn, the policy entrepreneur plays
an advisory role.
Policy formulation is another major role for the policy entrepreneur, again a
function of her/his particular position with a given institution, think tank, or coordinating
board performing more formulation work than other policy entrepreneurs might do. The
potential, and passion, to make a positive difference in the lives of students, as well as
wanting to help solve societal problems through higher education, are motivating factors
for the policy entrepreneur.
A leader, the policy entrepreneur is motivated by a passion for helping students
and his/her state and nation and does so armed with credible data, an incredible story, and
a network of support in a variety of places, including ideologically opposed organizations
from time to time. S/he has tremendous patience, can persevere through challenging
times, develop resources where there are little or none to build from, and can wait years
before seeing the fruits of his/her labor. The policy entrepreneur rests his/her work on a
set of values that provides stamina during periods of change and challenge, which in
higher education is a near constant. Lastly, the policy entrepreneur is a listener, a really
good, patient, open-minded listener, who is able to listen the needs of the people s/he
205
strives to serve and the needs of the decision-makers s/she strives to influence so she can
bridge the gap between knowledge, policy, and practice.
Recommendations
This study leads to several recommendations. While there are many suggestions
for future research, the nature of this study with its focus on the policy entrepreneur does
not suggest recommendations for policy, per se. Rather, the recommendations stem from
the conclusions regarding the potential to make lasting reform in the face of
incrementalism, and how the policy and academic communities learn to be more effective
in their practice, and can encourage and shape the development of future policy
entrepreneurs which is not a formal practice in higher education policy making, but one
that occurs organically and stems from the network dependency of policy entrepreneurs.
Recommendations for the development of policy entrepreneurs.
•
Policy entrepreneurs are well aware of what experiences, skill sets, and traits have
impacted their success as determined by their longevity in the complex, highpressure arena of policy making. Several participants noted their mentorship of
those coming up the ranks behind them. For those who are still in emergent and
not yet established, being cognizant of their place in line can help prepare them to
mentor and take on a more deliberate role in helping those entering their field
behind them.
•
Most participants entered the field with an academic background in higher
education leadership, and some had a policy-focused academic experience. While
some higher education leadership programs include a policy component, several
more do not. Johnsrud (2008) suspected that:
206
the content of our programs in regard to policy analysis and development
is pretty uneven with some programs doing a fine job of preparing
students to do both academic work and policy work, and other programs
that probably do less well. (p. 502)
Fortune (2012) implored that:
we cannot ignore the likelihood that politically adept individuals may have
greater capacity to effect change for their organisations, for themselves
and, as has been observed (e.g. Harvey, Harris, Harris, & Wheeler, 2007;
Perrewe et al., 2005), are less likely to experience social stress in the
workplace. (p. 612)
Therefore, those programs might consider including an experiential policy
component to help encourage and foster graduates to move beyond institutional
leadership into educational policy leadership. The use of case story, a:
…reflective, collegial, adult-learning method designed to help
practitioners make sense of their work lives by bridging the gap between
action and thought…is both a written and oral description of a real-life
critical incident or dilemma of practice…suited for any practitioner
willing to subject personal work experiences to systematic self-scrutiny
and analysis of others and can be used successfully with graduate students
and novice and veteran professionals (Maslin-Ostrowski & Ackerman,
2006, p. 106),
could be particularly valuable teaching tool. Existing policy programs not already
centered in a state capital or near Washington, DC, may want to work toward
207
building partnerships that enable internships and opportunities for action learning
in the structure of distance or travel courses.
Fortune (2012) brought up the question as to whether political skill can be
taught and referred to Perrewe and Nelson (2004) for an answer that mirrors the
nature versus nurture discussion in leadership literature (Northouse, 2007, 2013).
Fortune (2012) suggested the answer is both, and that:
if political skill is social skill applied to organisational environments,
developing capabilities for politically adept practice before our students
graduate requires us to consider the kinds of learning experiences to which
they should be exposed. Arguably, the most authentic approximations will
be work-integrated learning set around interdisciplinary projects
sponsored by real organisations (p. 612);
which brings the reader to the following recommendation.
•
The Big Six and other associations and think tanks might partner with university
programs to incentivize experiential learning by providing co-sponsored or
subsidized semester or year-long pre-doctoral fellowships that also satisfy
experiential learning credits at the host university.
•
Graduate students looking to embark on a career in higher education policy may
be more successful than others if they are already enrolled in an academic
program with a reputable policy focus, or one specifically dedication to policy
entrepreneurship such as exists at the Center for Policy Entrepreneurship at the
University of Chicago, or Cornell University, as examples. For others it will take
a more deliberate and independent search for local or regional opportunities via
208
self-designed internships, field projects, or administrative externships that will
enable them to develop concise, policy-focused writing, environmental scanning,
active listening, and other relevant skills. Students can also focus their
dissertation studies on a policy topic and use professional association conference
attendance to create their own policy-centered professional networks.
Recommendations to improve the practice of policy entrepreneurship.
•
“Policy entrepreneurs based in universities or ‘think tanks’ may use their
organizations as ‘safe havens’ for exercising intellectual freedom (King, as cited
by Mintrom & Vergari, 1996, p. 423). Indeed, Nagel (2001b) asserted that,
“universities are probably the most important course of creativity across all fields
of knowledge. Professors at major universities are paid mainly for developing
new ideas as manifested in their publishing” (p. 55). Yet:
Despite the overall quantity of information, the right kind of analysis often
is not available for a problem at hand. A great deal of work by academic
and other professional analysts is wasted in that government officials and
citizens do not find what is offered to them to be useful. (Lindblom &
Woodhouse, 1993, p. 16)
As Dr. Kanter noted in her interview:
We’ve got all of this research that’s just sitting on shelves. And then
you’ve got all these classrooms where students sit. And I keep saying
what I’ve been saying this for years: From all of this research, what are the
top three things every parent needs to do, what does every teacher need to
do, what does every professor need to do?” The literature is rich, not as
209
rich as it is in the sciences because historically we haven’t invested in
education research nearly enough as we have in scientific research, but we
have a rich literature filled with lots of things that people can do to help
students succeed in education to increase retention, to increase success, to
open up access, etc. And, that’s the gap we need to close.
Faculty looking to making an impact on policy should give consideration to the
suggestions made by several of the participants in this study including: limiting
quantitative analysis to easily digested descriptive statistical procedures and
reporting; broadening their publications into higher education media sources,
magazines, and other resources with a wider audience; reducing “academese” in
their writing and making more concise arguments to appeal to a broader audience
that is inclusive of the general public as well as policy actors; removing
theoretical language that can be polarizing or isolate others and using language
that focuses on commonalities and shared value, volunteering to sit on boards and
committees with a policy-focused charter; traveling to government centers to
introduce themselves, volunteer as consultants, and learn about the policy arena in
their area; and being open to learning new skills needed in the policy world such
as active listening and environmental scanning. As stated by Levin (2004), “the
contribution of research is always mediated through broader social and political
processes with all their attendant limitations” (p. 1). Further:
Turning a researcher into a policy entrepreneur…is not easy. It involves a
fundamental re-orientation towards policy engagement rather than
academic achievement; engaging much more with the policy community;
210
developing a research agenda focusing on policy issues rather than
academic interests; acquiring new skills or building multidisciplinary
teams; establishing new internal systems and incentives; spending much
more on communications; producing a different range of outputs; and
working more in partnerships and networks. (Overseas Development
Institute, 2009, p. 2)
Valentine (2005) offered these recommendations, “Focus on local legislators and
members of important committees; Develop working relationship/establish
credentials; Provide information first; Respond to their issues/inquiries;
Remember staff” (p. 6). Johnsrud (2008), speaking to a higher education
academic audience at the Association for the Study of Higher Education annual
conference on the topic of academic research and relevancy with policy and
practice implored:
We need to think during the design of the study about ways that the results
can be most useful. When we have results, we need to think about how to
present them to an audience that wants to put them to use, not just cite
them. (p. 502)
Johnsrud (2008) also recommended as a member of the academy herself: “get out
of our comfort zone, attend policy-oriented conferences that are foreign to us,
read publications that are new to us, and try our hand at policy-relevant work” (p.
502). Ultimately, faculty can increase their changes of impacting policy be
understanding how to communicate with different audiences, including the public,
“to promote a more informed policy dialogue” (Mintrom, 2003, p. 176).
211
Recommendations for research.
•
The policy entrepreneur as creative person was confirmed by the data regarding
participants’ solution oriented focus to their work; a strong value system directed
toward positive impact on the public good (therefore focused on creating
solutions, rather than political filibuster); a motivation to do important,
meaningful work and make sacrifices to do so; and a set of leadership traits,
leadership style, leadership skills, and political skills specific to her/his work. Not
all of these traits and skills are traditionally found in the literature on leadership
skills, such as descriptive statistical analysis, but to understand the policy
entrepreneur in higher education as a creative educational leader who must have
command of data for development of argument, the researcher suggests the
development of a survey instrument to further test this finding. Based on the data,
it may be possible to assert a unique creative and political leadership type, or a
typology of the policy entrepreneur in higher education, not already found in the
literature, although Mumford et al.’s (2000) model is still promising. Further
analysis is required and the researcher intends to make such an investigation in a
future study.
•
In future research, data collected for this study will be further analyzed by the
researcher, disaggregating the responses of those whose policy domain is twoyear and community colleges versus four-year colleges and universities to
examine any differences in how policy entrepreneurs approach their work. One
consideration to be made is the diversity of structures of state college systems
throughout the United States, as Dr. John E. Cech, Deputy Commissioner for
212
Two-Year and Community College Education for the Montana University System
recently pointed out (J. Cech, personal communication, January 31, 2015).
Further, Dr. Cech noted that these systems are sometimes embedded within state
university systems, as is the case in his home state of Montana, while in other
states there exist community college coordinating boards, community college
governing systems, and community college associations. It may be interesting to
organize such a study in parallel to the Fifty State Systems of Community Colleges
series, the latest edition of which was recently published in 2014 co-edited by
Friedel, Killacky, Miller, and Katsinas. Naturally, there is diversity among state
university system structures as well, so there is substantial opportunity to perform
cross-case comparative analyses.
•
Cross-case comparative analyses might also be made on an international level.
American-centric theories and policy making models, often also applied to
foreign-based case studies, dominate the discipline of policy studies. This leaves
room for critique and calls for a new understanding of the policy entrepreneur in
cultural contexts that differ from the American, or even Western European,
model.
•
Another cross-case comparative analysis would be to attempt to parse out policy
entrepreneurial activity between non-profit and for-profit domains. This is
challenging for two reasons. The first is that both non-profit and for-profit
institutions and associations technically operate within the same policy domain.
However, policy subsystems differ. By isolating policy issues, policy subsystems
(i.e., policy networks), and therefore the policy entrepreneurs who may work
213
exclusively in these domains, comparative research can be conducted that can
lead to new insights in to higher education policy making and the role of the
policy entrepreneur. Second, for-profit educational leaders must be willing and
available to participate in such studies. This researcher was not able to secure
interviews with any for-profit policy entrepreneurs despite attempts to do so, even
from within her social network.
•
Data can also be parsed out by gender. A small number of female participants
noted the challenges to their careers when they entered the field decades ago. To
what extent are these women policy pioneers? And for the two participants who
shared their concerns for the White, male dominated policy domains in which
they currently, work, how pervasive is this understanding and how does it impact
the role of female policy entrepreneurs and the policy making process?
•
Additional analysis might include aggregate social network mapping of the data
from this study not only as a stand-alone analysis, but also as a benchmark for
further social network mapping studies at individual levels to aid in comparative
research. Longer interview time, a refined and focused interview protocol, and
focused document review would make this approach more feasible.
•
In order to facilitate decision-tree analysis to examine the intricacies of the role of
the policy entrepreneur in higher education, longer interview time, a refined and
focused interview protocol, and direct observation is recommended, supplemented
by document review. Without being able to shadow policy entrepreneurs and see
them work in the context within which they operate, the data needed for such
analysis is inhibited.
214
•
The revised conceptual framework will be used to create a survey for validation
and perhaps further refinement of the framework. It would be pertinent to
conduct empirical tests to each construct of the revised conceptual framework and
perhaps work to integrate any new findings. From this, encouraging studies that
apply the framework would be a natural next step.
•
Additional research on policy entrepreneurship in higher education might focus
on a state-by-state comparative analysis, similarities and differences regarding
race and ethnicity of policy entrepreneurs, or a historical-political examination of
policy entrepreneurship with a particular policy innovation as the unit of analysis.
It might also be valuable to validate a contemporary model for understanding the
role of the policy entrepreneur strictly in terms of existing leadership models,
most notably Mumford et al.’s (2000), and Sternberg et al.’s (2003) models.
•
Studies that examine scholars who also identify as policy entrepreneurs and who
are focused on policy relevant research and writing is suggested. This can further
validate the framework and suggest additional specific best practices for other
scholars based on their measured impact.
•
Lastly, a cataloguing of higher education academic programs that have policy
components, and policy programs that encourage entry into the higher education
policy arena, to explore effective instructional methods and preparation programs
that help steer graduate students into policy-focused careers in higher education is
recommended. Such research can help programs better structure their programs
to encourage the development of future policy entrepreneurs, track their success
215
for program improvement, and create partnerships for co-op, internship, action
learning projects, and other experiential learning practices.
In Closing
Schneider et al. (1995) asserted that, “While most social scientific theories focus
on change as occurring in incremental fashion” (p. 1), as indeed this study assumes as the
explanation for slow developments in higher education policy at state and national levels,
“change can be sudden, producing radical shifts in the status quo” (p. 1). Schneider et al.
saw the policy entrepreneur as radical change agents that inject innovation into the public
sector. Mintrom and Vergari (1996) employed a trilateral definition of the policy
entrepreneur that includes the functions of: recognizing windows of opportunity; taking
risks; and coordinate networks to create the resources and acceptance that can help
implement a policy innovation. While not lobbyists per se, “policy entrepreneurs seek to
sell their policy ideas, and in doing so, to promote dynamic policy change” (Mintrom &
Vergari, 1996, p. 423). This study demonstrated that there is so much more to the role of
the policy entrepreneur than Mintrom and Vergari recognized. Policy entrepreneurs must
be adept data analysts and effective translators of information from one domain to
another. They have to be open-minded, take a bipartisan approach, and be able to adapt
to changes in political climate and adjust their strategies for advocacy and influence
accordingly.
Most importantly, policy entrepreneurs need to be “in it to win it.” They need to
be close to the decision-makers, and face time is still important even in the Information
Age. This facilitates: trust-building, the core element of developing long-term working
relationships; widens and deepens their networks; and teaches them how to do their job
216
while on the job. As they learn to be successful, they develop a natural leadership style, a
combination of the values, traits, and skills that shape their work. As creative political
leaders, including those who don’t “like” or “do” politics—at least not
externally/publicly—policy entrepreneurs will continue to be change agents in higher
education, while research will continue to emerge that helps to expand our understanding
of these unique policy actors in higher education and how they impact our students, our
institutions, and our nation.
Policy entrepreneurs are in the business of social problem-solving. Policy
entrepreneurship can and should be developed, among emergent practitioners, faculty
scholars, and students of higher education looking to engage in the policy making process
to effect change. However, development of a specific set of skills and honing of certain
traits are required. Since much of the development of the policy entrepreneur occurs onthe-job, mentorships play an important role in the success of the policy entrepreneur. But
academic programs, professional associations, think tanks and other entities within the
higher education enterprise can and should take a more deliberate and active role in
shaping structured programs to hasten the preparation of those looking to enter the field.
By doing so, the barriers to incrementalism can be broken through, that much more
effectively.
217
APPENDICES
218
Appendix A. IRB Approval Letters
Institutional Review Board
Mailing Address:
Division of Research
777 Glades Rd., Bldg. 80, Rm. 106
Boca Raton, FL 33431
FLORIDA
Tel: 561.297.0777 Fax: 561.297.2573
UNIVERSITY
http://www.fau.edu/research/researchint
ATLANTIC
Michael Whitehurst, Ed.D., Chair
DATE:
January 6, 2014
TO:
FROM:
John Pisapia, Ed.D.
Florida Atlantic University Social, Behavioral and Educational Research IRB
IRBNET ID #:
PROTOCOL TITLE:
515461-2
[515461-2] The Role of the Policy Entrepreneur in Higher Education
PROJECT TYPE:
ACTION:
New Project
APPROVED
APPROVAL DATE:
EXPIRATION DATE:
January 6, 2014
January 5, 2015
REVIEW TYPE:
REVIEW CATEGORY:
Expedited Review
Expedited review category # B7
Thank you for your submission of Response/Follow-Up materials for this research study. The Florida
Atlantic University Social, Behavioral and Educational Research IRB has APPROVED your New Project.
This approval is based on an appropriate risk/benefit ratio and a study design wherein the risks have
been minimized. All research must be conducted in accordance with this approved submission.
• This study is approved for a maximum of 24 subjects.
• It is important that you use the approved, stamped consent documents or procedures included with
this letter.
• **Please note that any revision to previously approved materials or procedures, including
modifications to numbers of subjects, must be approved by the IRB before it is initiated.
Please use the amendment form to request IRB approval of a proposed revision.
• All SERIOUS and UNEXPECTED adverse events must be reported to this office. Please use
the appropriate adverse event forms for this procedure. All regulatory and sponsor reporting
requirements should also be followed, if applicable.
• Please report all NON-COMPLIANCE issues or COMPLAINTS regarding this study to this office.
• Please note that all research records must be retained for a minimum of three years.
• This approval is valid for one year. A Continuing Review form will be required prior to the
expiration date if this project will continue beyond one year.
If you have any questions or comments about this correspondence, please contact Elisa Gaucher at:
Research Integrity/Division of Research
-1-
219
Generated on IRBNet
Bldg. 80, Rm. 106
Phone: 561-297-0777
* Please include your protocol number and title in all correspondence with this office.
This letter has been electronically signed in accordance with all applicable regulations,
and a copy is retained within our records.
-2-
220
Generated on IRBNet
Mailing Address:
Division of Research
777 Glades Rd., Bldg. 80, Rm. 106
FLORIDA
Tel: 561.297.0777 Fax: 561.297.2573
UNIVERSITY
http://www.fau.edu/research/researchint
ATLANTIC
Michael Whitehurst, Ed.D., Chair
DATE:
June 13, 2014
TO:
FROM:
John Pisapia, Ed.D.
Florida Atlantic University Social, Behavioral and Educational Research IRB
PROTOCOL #:
PROTOCOL TITLE:
515461-3
[515461-3] The Role of the Policy Entrepreneur in Higher Education
SUBMISSION TYPE:
Amendment/Modification
ACTION:
APPROVED
EFFECTIVE DATE:
June 12, 2014
Thank you for your submission of Amendment materials for this research protocol. The Florida Atlantic
University IRB has approved your request to modify your protocol as outlined below:
• Amending the procedures for conducting participant interviews to also include additional
asynchronous email interviews.
Please use the stamped, alternative consent that accompanies this approval letter and is pertinent to this
target group.
If you have any questions or comments about this correspondence, please contact Elisa Gaucher at:
Research Integrity/Division of Research
Bldg. 80, Rm. 106
Phone: 561-297-0777
* Please include your protocol number and title in all correspondence with this office.
This letter has been electronically signed in accordance with all applicable regulations,
and a copy is retained within our records.
-1-
221
Generated on IRBNet
Appendix B. Document Collection and Review Guide
Document Type
Source
Purpose
Research
Question
Alignment
Ratified Federal
Statutes
United States Statutes
at Large
Identify Potential Participants
Primary RQ,
SRQa
Legislative Bills
GovTrack.us
Primary RQ,
SRQa
Triangulate Interview Data
Federal Agency
Regulations
Federal Register
Congressional
Addresses,
Hearings, and
Meetings
Transcripts and
Submitted
Documents
U.S. Government
Printing Office Online
Clearinghouse
Administrative
Memoranda
U.S. Government
Printing Office Online
Clearinghouse
Media Articles
Online and Print
Newspapers, News
Magazines, and
Academic Journals
Published Policy
Initiatives, White
Papers, and Reports
Think Tank, Lobbying
Group, and Professional
Association Websites
Participant CVs /
Resumes
Consenting Participants
Provide Contextual Data
Primary RQ,
SRQa
Primary RQ,
SRQa, SRQc
Primary RQ,
SRQa, SRQc
Primary RQ,
SRQb, SRQc,
SRQd
222
Primary RQ,
SRQa, SRQc,
SRQd
Primary RQ,
SRQa, SRQb,
SRQc, SRQd
Appendix C. Document Summary Form
Phase 1 / Phase 2 Document Summary
Document Title:
Date of Retrieval:
Description:
Summary of Content:
Relevance to Study:
223
Appendix D. Email Recruitment Script
Date
Dear Potential Participant Name:
My name is Rivka Felsher. I am pursuing my doctorate in Higher Education Leadership at Florida Atlantic
University in Boca Raton, Florida. I am in the process of recruiting participants for my dissertation entitled, “The
Role of the Policy Entrepreneur in Higher Education” under the guidance of my Committee Chair, Dr. John Pisapia
([email protected]) from the Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology in the College of
Education. Committee members also include Deborah L. Floyd, J. Dan Morris, Pat Maslin-Ostrowksi at Florida
Atlantic University, and John E. Cech from the State University System of Montana.
The purpose of this research study is to identify policy entrepreneurs who are advocating for sustainable and
innovative national higher education policy reform, catalog their characteristics, skills, strategies, and behaviors, and
determine how they developed the qualities that make them successful. You have been identified by a panel of
higher education policy experts as an individual who is advocating for an innovative policy solution in higher
education. With your consent, I would like to interview you, face to face at a location convenient to you, or via
video/teleconference. The confidential interview should take about 45 to 90 minutes of your time, based on your
availability. The information I collect will be published in my doctoral dissertation, and possibly in later research
articles.
If you are willing and able to participate in this research study, please reply via email to [email protected] no later
than DATE. I will also try to follow-up by telephone. I will then email you a consent form for your review,
signature, and return to me via email, along with a current resume or CV that includes your relevant education and
work history. The consent form explains more about how your identity will be protected, options you have
regarding your participation, and storage of all data. I will then contact you by phone to schedule an interview.
Please also indicate if you would like the interview questions in advance.
If you are unable to participate, but can suggest someone else with whom you are familiar through your work who
may be willing and able to participate, your response would be appreciated.
Thank you for your support,
Rivka Felsher
[email protected]
Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education Leadership Program
Department of Educational Leadership & Research Methodology
College of Education
Boca Raton, FL 33431 (954) 495-6682
CC: John Pisapia
Approved on:
Expires on:
224
01/06/14
01/05/15
Appendix E. IRB Approved Consent Forms
Consent to Participate in Research Study
1) Title of Research Study: The Role of the Policy Entrepreneur in Higher Education
2) Investigator(s): Dr. John Pisapia, Principal Investigator, and Rivka Felsher, Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education
Leadership Program, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida
3) Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to identify policy entrepreneurs who are advocating for sustainable
and innovative national higher education policy reform, catalog their characteristics, skills, strategies, and behaviors,
and determine how they developed the qualities that make them successful.
4) Procedures: As a consenting participant you will be interviewed by Rivka Felsher at a date, time, and location that
is convenient to you. The one-time interview will be conducted either face-to-face or via computer-mediated
communications technology, such as Skype or OoVoo. Interviews are designed to run between 45 and 90 minutes
based on your availability. With your permission, the interview will be audio/video recorded. In addition, your current
resume or CV will be collected to provide information regarding your educational preparation for the work that you do
that is part of the focus of this study.
5) Risks: The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than you would experience in regular daily
activities. It is unlikely you will experience any harm or discomfort. You may decline to answer any portion of the
interview and you may conclude the interview at any time and rescind your consent.
6) Benefits: We do not know if you will receive any direct benefits by taking part in this study. However, this
research will contribute to a greater understanding of policy entrepreneurship in higher education.
7) Data Collection & Storage: Any information collected about you will be kept confidential and secure and only the
people working with the study will see your data, unless required by law. The interview will be recorded on a local
digital audio/video recording device, and if performed virtually, will be done so over a private, encrypted Internet
connection. The interview data and your resume or CV will be kept on encrypted digital files a password-protected
computer not connected to the Internet at the investigator’s home office for up to 5 years and will then be deleted.
We may publish what we learn from this study. If we do, we will not let anyone know your name/identity unless you
give us permission to do so.
8) Contact Information: For questions or problems regarding your rights as a research subject, you can contact the
Florida Atlantic University Division of Research at (561) 297-0777. For other questions about the study, you should
call the principal investigator, Dr. John Pisapia at (561) 297-3550 and [email protected], or Rivka Felsher at (954)
495-6682 and [email protected].
9) Consent Statement: I have read or had read to me the preceding information describing this study. All my
questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I am 18 years of age or older and freely consent to participate. I
understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I have received a copy of this
consent form.
Signature of Participant:
Date:
Printed name of Participant: First
Last
Signature of Investigator:
Date:
Approved on:
Expires on:
225
01/06/14
01/05/15
Consent to Participate in Research Study
1) Title of Research Study: The Role of the Policy Entrepreneur in Higher Education
2) Investigator(s): Dr. John Pisapia, Principal Investigator, and Rivka Felsher, Doctoral Candidate, Higher Education
Leadership Program, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida
3) Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to identify policy entrepreneurs who are advocating for sustainable
and innovative national higher education policy reform, catalog their characteristics, skills, strategies, and behaviors,
and determine how they developed the qualities that make them successful.
4) Procedures: As a consenting participant you will be interviewed by Rivka Felsher over email. The interactive,
asynchronous, email interview will be conducted from the [email protected] email account and will be limited to no
more than three emails each way between Rivka and yourself. You may designate the email account through which
you wish to participate. The initial email will include all interview questions. No more than two follow-up emails from
Rivka will ask only follow-up questions to request clarification or elaboration on your responses as needed. In
addition, your current resume or CV will be collected to provide information regarding your educational preparation for
the work that you do that is part of the focus of this study. You may respond to interview questions on your own
schedule and take as long as you wish, however, the researcher requests responses within two to three weeks if
possible.
5) Risks: The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than you would experience in regular daily
activities. It is unlikely you will experience any harm or discomfort. You may decline to answer any portion of the
interview and you may conclude the interview at any time and rescind your consent.
6) Benefits: We do not know if you will receive any direct benefits by taking part in this study. However, this
research will contribute to a greater understanding of policy entrepreneurship in higher education.
7) Data Collection & Storage: Any information collected about you will be kept confidential and secure and only the
people working with the study will see your data, unless required by law. The interview data and your resume or CV
will be kept on encrypted digital files on a password-protected computer not connected to the Internet at the
investigator’s home office for up to 5 years and will then be deleted. We may publish what we learn from this study.
If we do, we will not let anyone know your name/identity unless you give us permission to do so.
8) Contact Information: For questions or problems regarding your rights as a research subject, you can contact the
Florida Atlantic University Division of Research at (561) 297-0777. For other questions about the study, you should
call the principal investigator, Dr. John Pisapia at (561) 297-3550 and [email protected], or Rivka Felsher at (954)
495-6682 and [email protected].
9) Consent Statement: I have read or had read to me the preceding information describing this study. All my
questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I am 18 years of age or older and freely consent to participate. I
understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I have received a copy of this
consent form.
Signature of Participant:
Date:
Printed name of Participant: First
Last
Signature of Investigator:
Date:
226
Appendix F. Interview Protocol and Questions
The semi-structured interviews include standardized, open-ended questions with
probing and clarifying questions based on the protocol below. The researcher will aim to
achieve a conversational tone to build rapport and illicit responses from participants that
will enable the collection of thick, rich data for analysis. Participants will be asked to
offer a pseudonym of their choosing.
Opening
Good Morning/Afternoon. Thank you for participating in this study about the role of the
policy entrepreneur in higher education. As I mentioned over the phone, the purpose of
this research study, in brief, is to identify policy entrepreneurs who are advocating for
sustainable and innovative national higher education policy reform, catalog their
characteristics, skills, strategies, and behaviors, and determine how they developed the
qualities that make them successful. I hope to validate a conceptual framework for
understanding the role of policy entrepreneurs in higher education. The questions I will
be asking you today are designed to fulfill this purpose. If at anytime you do not feel
comfortable answering a question, you may pass. You may also rescind your consent and
remove yourself, and any data collected about you and your work, from the analysis and
reporting.
For the purpose of this study, policy entrepreneurs are defined as experienced
leaders, inside or outside the formal governmental system, who are motivated and
equipped with a set of cognitive and behavioral characteristics and skills that enable him
or her to advocate for policy innovation that has the potential to break through the
barriers of incremental politics.
Do you have any questions for me before we begin? (If yes, investigator will answer
questions of participant). (If no) Okay, let’s get started.
Interview Questions
1.What do you enjoy most about your role in higher education?
a. What motivated you to take on this work?
b. What particular choices did you make along your career path that helped get
you where you are today?
2. What is an average day like for you in your work?
a. What do you do?
3. How did you learn to do the work that you do; formally, informally, and from whom
(for example, mentors, peers, teachers, supervisors, competitors)?
4. How would you describe the higher education policy arena within which you work - do
you believe that it is competitive, cooperative, and/or collaborative, and why?
5. For the purposing of explaining how certain types of policy actors shape higher
227
education, outside of your own organization, what types of policy actors, and those
outside of policy making, shape your work more than others, and why?
6. In what ways do you believe you have most effectively influenced, and continue to
influence, higher education?
a. Has this influence changed or shifted over time, and if so why?
7. How do you use data to drive your agenda?
a. Where do you get your most useful data?
8. How do you get your policy issues and/or solutions on a state or federal policy making
agenda and make sure that the right people hear your voice?
9. How do you recognize and take advantage of a window of opportunity?
a. How did you learn to do this?
10. How do you attempt to predict and strategize around the actions of your competitors
or detractors in order to more successfully move your policy solution(s) forward?
11. When you have felt most successful in your role, and why?
a. What strategies have worked best for you?
12. When you have been most challenged in your role, and why?
a. What strategies did you try that did not work as you intended?
b. What did you learn from those experiences?
13. What do you think it takes to reform higher education systemically?
b. How can leaders such as yourself make a lasting and positive difference?
14. What advice would you give someone aspiring to do similar work as you?
a. What skills do you believe they would most need to develop?
b. How would the advice be different if the person was a policy outsider?
c. Are you mentoring or guiding the work of others? If so, in what ways?
Closing
Please share any additional thoughts regarding your role in higher education policy
making that I may not have already asked that you feel might be relevant to the
understanding of your successes and challenges.
Would you like all of your data de-identified?
a. If so, would you like to select a pseudonym?
b. If not, do you consent to allow your identity be used in analysis and reporting?
Thank you for your time today. Your insights are invaluable to this study. I will be in
contact with you again in a few weeks to share the transcription and offer you an
228
opportunity to check my recording of information that you shared, share more
information, and/or redact any information that you wish.
Thank you once again. Have a good day/afternoon/evening.
229
Appendix G. Definition of Terms
Advocacy coalitions are defined as groups of people and representatives of organizations
who work in tandem to bring about a policy change Sabatier (1988).
Disjointed incrementalism (or just used as Incrementalism) is “fragmentation of
analytical work to many (partisan) participants in policy making” (Lindblom,
1979, p. 517).
Economic game theory is the analysis of strategies, relationships, interactions, rationality,
decisions, and human behavior in the context of competitive or cooperative
situations with varying levels of information available to the participants, also
known as players (Dutta, 1999).
Policy agenda is defined by Kingdon (2011) as the “the list of subjects or problems to
which government officials, and people outside of government closely associated
with those officials, are paying some serious attention at any given time” (p. 3).
In this study, agenda refers to both state and federal-level policy agendas.
Policy arena is defined for the purpose of this study as the metaphorical space where the
roles and functions of policy making occurs.
Policy diffusion is defined by Rogers (1995) as “the process by which innovation is
communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social
system” (p. 5).
Policy domain is defined for the purpose of this study as the focus of policy making
activity.
Policy entrepreneur is a term coined by Walker in 1974 and again by Kingdon in 1984
who then defined policy entrepreneurs as “advocates for proposals or for the
230
prominence of an idea” (Kingdon, 2011, p. 122) found throughout a given policy
arena. In contrast, Roberts and King (1991) defined policy entrepreneurs as those
individuals “who work from outside the formal governmental system to introduce,
translate, and implement innovative ideas into public sector practice” (p. 152).
Mintrom (1997) later defined policy entrepreneurs as “people who seek to initiate
dynamic policy change…through attempting to win support for ideas for policy
innovation” (p. 739). For the purpose of this study the researcher policy
entrepreneurs are defined as experienced leaders, inside or outside the formal
innovation that has the potential to break through the barriers of incremental
politics.
Policy innovation as defined for the purpose of this study, is drawn from Vehar’s (2008)
and Kaufmann’s (1993) definitions of innovation, and refers to policy reform that
offers new and useful alternatives to current policy problems within a
particular policy context.
Policy making generally refers to policy formulation and enactment.
Policy reform refers to government intervention to address social consequences of free
markets (Keynes, 1936). Policy reform may or may not be innovative as old
solutions may cycle through the policy making process and many policy solutions
fail to make a sustainable impact.
Punctuated equilibrium is defined as periods of rapid change that result from breakdowns
in policy subsystems that are punctuated in a way that establishes a new
231
equilibrium for evaluating policy (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Jones,
Baumgartner, & True, 1998).
Successful policy entrepreneurs are defined in this study as those who are able to use
their leadership and political traits and skills to remain in their positions and
realize change. Given the length of time that it takes for policy innovations to be
enacted or implemented (in some cases nearly a decade, and occasionally longer),
successful policy entrepreneurs were categorized as emergent (0–5 years engaged
in policy work), established (6–10 years engaged in policy work), or master (over
10 years engaged in policy work).
232
Appendix H. Codebook
Count
Color
Parent code
1
●
2
●
3
●
4
●
5
●
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
College Access
College Access
13
14
15
16
●
●
●
●
College Access
College Access
College Access
College Access
17
18
●
●
19
●
20
●
21
●
22
●
23
●
24
●
25
●
College Access
College
Affordability
College
Affordability
College
Affordability
College
Completion and
Curriculum
College
Completion and
Curriculum
College
Completion and
Curriculum
College
Completion and
Curriculum
College
Completion and
Curriculum
Code
All coded
segments
0
All coded
segments %
0.00
Docs
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.07
0
0
0
3
0
5
4
11
4
5
3
0.15
0.05
0.07
0.04
3
4
4
2
6
8
0.08
0.11
5
8
Tuition Pricing
12
0.16
8
Federal Aid
19
0.25
15
Remedial Education
Reform
1
0.01
1
Competency-Based
Education
7
0.09
4
Workforce Education
32
0.42
23
Teaching and Learning
4
0.05
4
Student Success
19
0.25
15
Selection Attribute:
Sustain/Innov Policy
Focus
Participant Attribute:
Demographics
Selection Attribute:
Policy Arena
Success Attribute:
Measure of Success in
PEship
Typology Attribute:
PEship Style
Propositions
Conceptual Framework
Research Questions
Emergent/Data-driven
In Vivo
Undocumented Students
Distance and Online
Education
Rural Colleges
Minority Students
Veterans
Adult/Non-Traditional
Students
Disadvantaged Students
State Aid
233
0
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
College
Completion and
Curriculum
College
Completion and
Curriculum
College
Completion and
Curriculum
Conceptual
Framework
26
●
27
●
28
●
29
●
30
●
Conceptual
Framework
31
●
32
●
33
●
Conceptual
Framework
Conceptual
Framework
Conceptual
Framework
34
●
Conceptual
Framework
35
●
36
●
37
●
Conceptual
Framework
Conceptual
Framework
Conceptual
Framework
38
●
Conceptual
Framework
39
●
Conceptual
Framework
40
●
41
●
42
●
43
●
44
●
45
●
46
●
Conceptual
Framework
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
On-time Registration
All coded
segments
1
Economic development
17
0.22
9
Reverse Transfer
2
0.03
1
ConFram: Create
Person: Leadership
Traits
ConFram: Create
Person: Leadership
Skills
ConFram: Create
Person: Values
ConFram: Create
Person: Motivations
ConFram: Create
Product: Policy
Innovation
ConFram: Create
Process: Problem
solving Behaviors
ConFram: Create
Process: Networking
ConFram: Create
Process: Strategizing
ConFram: Create Press:
External Complex
Political Context
External Conflict
(Emergent)
Internal Learning
Process
Theoretical Constructs
for Future Survey
Moving Target Energizer Bunny
Resource Development
57
0.75
18
76
1.00
16
97
1.28
23
116
1.53
24
111
1.47
52
92
1.22
20
233
3.08
37
362
4.79
73
168
2.22
29
120
1.59
21
217
2.87
25
302
3.99
28
30
0.40
11
45
0.60
11
Mixed Methods
Trending
Quant/Qual Data
Priority
Humor/Charisma
17
0.22
12
32
0.42
14
69
0.91
15
Perseverance/Energy/Sa
crifice
46
0.61
16
234
1
Count
Color
47
●
48
●
49
●
50
●
51
●
52
●
53
●
54
●
55
●
56
●
57
●
58
●
59
●
60
●
61
●
62
●
63
●
64
●
65
●
66
●
67
●
68
●
69
●
70
●
71
●
Parent code
Code
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
All coded
segments %
0.16
Docs
Data Wonk
All coded
segments
12
Mentor Model
91
1.20
20
Thoughtfulness
21
0.28
9
Good Writer
27
0.36
12
CC Context:
Cooperative
Information/Data/Analy
sis/Research
Process
27
0.36
14
136
1.80
35
93
1.23
17
Window of Opportunity
73
0.97
18
Vision
15
0.20
5
Developmental Advice
95
1.26
22
Humility
42
0.56
9
Passion
19
0.25
10
Nonpartisanship/bipartisan
support
Compromise
35
0.46
18
18
0.24
10
PE ID issue/Lobbying
17
0.22
7
Unplanned Career
Choice/Luck/Fortune
Listen
85
1.12
16
41
0.54
13
Life Balance
13
0.17
6
Planned career path
28
0.37
10
Quality of Work
26
0.34
7
Selfishness/Greed/Selfserving/Self-righteous
Power vs.
Empowerment
Intuition/instinct/gut
feeling
Storytelling
10
0.13
5
20
0.26
4
4
0.05
3
11
0.15
8
Dialogue
12
0.16
5
235
6
Count
Color
72
●
73
●
74
●
75
●
76
●
77
●
78
●
79
●
80
●
81
●
82
●
83
●
84
●
85
●
86
●
87
●
88
●
89
●
90
●
91
●
92
●
93
●
94
●
95
●
96
●
Parent code
Code
All coded
segments
15
All coded
segments %
0.20
Docs
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Emergent/Datadriven
Audience
Service/Servant
Leadership
Honesty/Trust/Buyin/Credibility
Value-add
8
0.11
5
40
0.53
12
8
0.11
4
Team Work
35
0.46
7
Tact
4
0.05
3
Loyalty
4
0.05
1
Patience
11
0.15
8
Policy Shop
7
0.09
3
Risk-taking
22
0.29
10
Reflection
26
0.34
11
Agenda Setting
19
0.25
9
Preparation/Positioned/
Poised
Partnerships
9
0.12
7
19
0.25
8
Social Media
12
0.16
6
Gender
14
0.19
7
Flexibility
2
0.03
2
Policy Wonk
4
0.05
3
Enterprise
5
0.07
3
Translate/Language
25
0.33
13
Change Agent
3
0.04
1
Diversity
2
0.03
2
Communication Skills
37
0.49
16
Relationship
Development
Coalition Building
52
0.69
12
8
0.11
4
236
4
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
Negotiation
97
●
98
●
Emergent/Datadriven
In Vivo
99
●
In Vivo
100
●
In Vivo
101
●
In Vivo
102
●
In Vivo
103
●
In Vivo
104
●
In Vivo
105
●
In Vivo
106
●
In Vivo
107
●
In Vivo
108
●
In Vivo
109
●
In Vivo
110
●
In Vivo
111
●
In Vivo
112
●
In Vivo
113
●
In Vivo
114
●
In Vivo
115
●
In Vivo
116
●
In Vivo
117
●
In Vivo
WB: “When it was time
for me to think about
being prosperous”
WB: “The best job I’ve
ever had”
WB: “Are leaders born
or are leaders made?”
WB: “You have to
compromise”
WB: “Shape the way
the sausage is made”
WB: “Create wham,
bam opportunities”
WB: “Jazz that
proverbial needle”
WB: “I couldn’t have
been received in this
city any better”
PC: “Where it went
poorly, I bet I didn’t put
in tons of effort”
PC: “It takes a lot of
convergence”
PC: “We all get into this
stuff to try to save the
world”
PC: “It is agenda
setting…”
PC: “Numbers don’t
convince…they don’t
move people”
PC: “You have to be in
constant conversation”
PC: “There has to be
some trial and error”
PC: “I don’t mean to get
on a soapbox, but…”
BW: “I drank the KoolAid…”
BW: “In disarray at
best”
BW: “Politicians are all
grabbing for
headlines…”
BW: “Everybody wants
more information”
237
All coded
segments
5
All coded
segments %
0.07
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
4
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
BW: “There’s always
room for improvement”
BW: “We can start by
helping higher
education”
BW: “It depends on the
audience”
BW: “It’s a selling job”
BW: “It’s what the data
tells us”
BW: “It ain’t about
you”
DB: “Doing the right
thing”
DB: “Learn on the job”
DB: “Power is pretty
concentrated”
DB: “How hard I
fought”
DB: “Data is incredibly
important”
DB: “Tyranny of the
anecdote”
DB: “There’s
nothing…magical or
mystical about it”
DB: “You really do
have to believe in what
you’re doing”
DB: “Accentuate the
positive”
DB: “So much is up in
the air”
DB: “We get a lot of
bad press”
DB: “There’s just an
incredible amount of
luck involved”
CW: “Literally fell into
it by accident”
CW: “No training for
this per se”
CW: “Be ready to
jump”
CW: “That’s just a part
of the job”
CW: “We do need
systemic change”
118
●
In Vivo
119
●
In Vivo
120
●
In Vivo
121
122
●
●
In Vivo
In Vivo
123
●
In Vivo
124
●
In Vivo
125
126
●
●
In Vivo
In Vivo
127
●
In Vivo
128
●
In Vivo
129
●
In Vivo
130
●
In Vivo
131
●
In Vivo
132
●
In Vivo
133
●
In Vivo
134
●
In Vivo
135
●
In Vivo
136
●
In Vivo
137
●
In Vivo
138
●
In Vivo
139
●
In Vivo
140
●
In Vivo
238
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
CW: “We also need
more diversity in the
policy making system”
CW: “Try to wear them
down”
CW: “Better to be openminded”
TO: “The driving force
to make a difference”
TO: “Aligning myself
with great role models”
TO: “It came naturally
over time”
TO: “I had no models or
instruction”
TO: “I am a maverick
marching to my own
drummer”
TO: “I am constantly
alert to what is
happening and what is
new”
TO: “Enlightened
common sense”
TO: “Change can
happen but it needs a
champion”
TO: “A romantic who
weeps openly”
TO: “Know thyself!!”
TO: “There are really
no limits or rules”
TO: “It is just part of
the code”
MK: “Prepare the way
for the next generation
of leadership”
MK: “Clear up
pathways to higher
education”
MK: “It was really a
civil rights education”
MK: “We’ve got all of
this research…just
sitting on shelves”
MK: “We have a ton of
regulation in the way”
MK: “The changes are
so incremental”
141
●
In Vivo
142
●
In Vivo
143
●
In Vivo
144
●
In Vivo
145
●
In Vivo
146
●
In Vivo
147
●
In Vivo
148
●
In Vivo
149
●
In Vivo
150
●
In Vivo
151
●
In Vivo
152
●
In Vivo
153
154
●
●
In Vivo
In Vivo
155
●
In Vivo
156
●
In Vivo
157
●
In Vivo
158
●
In Vivo
159
●
In Vivo
160
●
In Vivo
161
●
In Vivo
239
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
MK: “You have to be
ready to take that risk”
MK: “All of this
depends on who gets in
the door”
MK: “You’ve got to
think through the
opposition”
MK: “There’s some
kernels of wisdom
there”
MK: “That’s a failure of
policy and
communication”
MK: “A new generation
of policy people”
SW: “Spread the good
news”
SW: “There are flavors
of the month”
SW: “I look for the
outliers”
SW: “The role of
strategic philanthropy is
to be catalytic”
SW: “Multiple
solutions…and multiple
pathways”
CM: “I figured I’d be
more marketable”
CM: “It was an indirect
path”
CM: “I have no
problems making
decisions”
CM: “That makes me
feel good, because it’s
useful”
CM: “You’ve got to
figure out when to fight
a battle”
CM: “If you don’t pay
attention to it, then
there’s conflict”
CM: “Understand who
your audience is”
CM: “Build your own
credibility”
CM: “There’s a
difference between
policy and politics”
162
●
In Vivo
163
●
In Vivo
164
●
In Vivo
165
●
In Vivo
166
●
In Vivo
167
●
In Vivo
168
●
In Vivo
169
●
In Vivo
170
●
In Vivo
171
●
In Vivo
172
●
In Vivo
173
●
In Vivo
174
●
In Vivo
175
●
In Vivo
176
●
In Vivo
177
●
In Vivo
178
●
In Vivo
179
●
In Vivo
180
●
In Vivo
181
●
In Vivo
240
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
CM: “I’ve kept my toe
in the academic circle”
CM: “I focus on doing
my best”
CM: “My hobby is
higher ed stuff”
NW: “I made a
deliberate effort to get
practical experience”
NW: “Everything boils
down to dollars and
cents”
NW: “Every day is
completely different”
NW: “Follow the
money trail”
NW: “I envision myself
as the connector”
NW: “I make a very
concerted effort to listen
to folks”
NW: “I’ve had a lot of
mentors”
NW: “You have to be in
both worlds”
NW: “There’s a
different language”
NW: “It really is a
cooperative effort”
NW: “Check your ego
at the door”
NW: “You should
always have your game
face on”
NW: “It depends on
your audience”
NW: “I’m as successful
or unsuccessful as I
make myself”
NW: “They have to
trust you before you’re
allowed into the space”
K: “I landed on it by
accident”
K: “A mile wide and an
inch deep”
K: “They want to see
something concrete that
happened”
182
●
In Vivo
183
●
In Vivo
184
●
In Vivo
185
●
In Vivo
186
●
In Vivo
187
●
In Vivo
188
●
In Vivo
189
●
In Vivo
190
●
In Vivo
191
●
In Vivo
192
●
In Vivo
193
●
In Vivo
194
●
In Vivo
195
●
In Vivo
196
●
In Vivo
197
●
In Vivo
198
●
In Vivo
199
●
In Vivo
200
●
In Vivo
201
●
In Vivo
202
●
In Vivo
241
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
K: “Most of it’s been
just picking up
knowledge as I go
along”
K: “There is some
bipartisan agreement”
K: “We’re most
effective when we’re all
on the same page”
K: “The key thing for us
is hitting the iron when
it’s hot”
K: “We definitely have
a dialog with the
public”
K: “We work with our
members to try to
advance our agenda”
K: “One person’s
reform is another
person’s bad idea”
K: “Policy change
creates winners and
losers”
K: “Government is a
human institution”
J: “I don’t really claim
to be an academic”
J: “Anecdotal
qualitative research just
won’t cut it”
J: “Have wide
distribution”
J: “It’s a closed circle”
J: “Who is invited at the
table is extremely
important”
J: “To publish policy
briefs is not enough”
J: “Somewhere in there
I think the students have
been lost”
J: “You can’t fatten a
pig by weighing it”
J: “I’m not as highly
focused as some
people”
J: “You need to have
the data”
203
●
In Vivo
204
●
In Vivo
205
●
In Vivo
206
●
In Vivo
207
●
In Vivo
208
●
In Vivo
209
●
In Vivo
210
●
In Vivo
211
●
In Vivo
212
●
In Vivo
213
●
In Vivo
214
●
In Vivo
215
216
●
●
In Vivo
In Vivo
217
●
In Vivo
218
●
In Vivo
219
●
In Vivo
220
●
In Vivo
221
●
In Vivo
242
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
J: “You’ve got to put
the human face on it”
J: “In this business you
learn the value of
loyalty”
J: “You learn that
information is power”
J: “There are power
brokers and there are
gatekeepers”
J: “Hire the best and the
brightest”
J: “We’re not going to
have systemic reform”
J: “Wow, I use my
network all the time”
AB: “We need to be
ready when it happens”
AB: “Currying those
relationships”
AB: “You definitely
have the naysayers”
AB: “I’ll show up in
somebody’s office”
AB: “It’s hard to say no
in person”
AB: “I had to learn a lot
on the spot”
AB: “I don’t think I’d
ever imagine doing
political work”
AB: “I do not feel
comfortable lobbying”
AB: “Our agenda is a
more sort of data-driven
agenda”
AB: “Nothing happens
without money”
AB: “There is a history
there”
AB: “Keep your head
down and do good
work”
JI: “We get to build
something”
JI: “There’s nothing
else like it”
JI: “Communication is a
large part of what I do”
222
●
In Vivo
223
●
In Vivo
224
●
In Vivo
225
●
In Vivo
226
●
In Vivo
227
●
In Vivo
228
●
In Vivo
229
●
In Vivo
230
●
In Vivo
231
●
In Vivo
232
●
In Vivo
233
●
In Vivo
234
●
In Vivo
235
●
In Vivo
236
●
In Vivo
237
●
In Vivo
238
●
In Vivo
239
●
In Vivo
240
●
In Vivo
241
●
In Vivo
242
●
In Vivo
243
●
In Vivo
243
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
JI: “Truth sometimes is
in the middle”
JI: “We work in teams a
lot”
JI: “I can’t wait weeks
for it”
JI: “It’s an attention to
constant planning and
strategizing”
JI: “There’s no sacred
time”
JI: “People have got to
speak data”
JI: “It can be used
wrongly and then all
hell breaks loose”
JI: “It’s almost like
performance art in a
way”
JI: “It’s like layers of an
onion”
JI: “They’ve got to get
out and rub elbows with
peers”
JI: “We sometimes
work under stunningly
difficult deadlines”
JI: “During leg session,
it’s just crazy”
JI: “I wouldn’t have any
other job”
SO: “That hierarchy
doesn’t mean anything
anymore”
SO: “We do our work in
a very, very
nonpartisan, bipartisan
way”
SO: “You just have to
be extraordinarily wellprepared”
SO: “You have to be
extraordinarily patient”
SO: “Perseverance…
you just gotta keep the
eye on the ball”
SO: “Well-positioned
and then waiting and
then timing”
SO: “We had a bomb
dropped on us”
244
●
In Vivo
245
●
In Vivo
246
●
In Vivo
247
●
In Vivo
248
●
In Vivo
249
●
In Vivo
250
●
In Vivo
251
●
In Vivo
252
●
In Vivo
253
●
In Vivo
254
●
In Vivo
255
●
In Vivo
256
●
In Vivo
257
●
In Vivo
258
●
In Vivo
259
●
In Vivo
260
●
In Vivo
261
●
In Vivo
262
●
In Vivo
263
●
In Vivo
244
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
SO: “It just, it got toxic”
SO: “You can’t ignore
anybody”
SO: “It’s all about
relationship building”
SO: “We found an
incredible partner”
SO: “We’re bringing in
strange bedfellows
sometimes”
SO: “Money speaks,
let’s face it”
SO: “Just always go the
extra mile”
SO: “You’ve got to be
willing and able to
provide leadership”
SO: “Understanding the
circumstance that
you’re involved in”
KC: “Write like a
journalist”
KC: “How do you get it
down to one page”
KC: “Now, it’s write for
tweets”
KC: “We’re not trained
to do that in grad
school”
KC: “Windows of
opportunity? They
absolutely do open”
KC: “I work to look for
and create those
opportunities”
KC: “It’s a pretty darn
big Rolodex we have of
clients”
KC: “Be able to think
on the sly”
KC: “It comes through
these little itty-bitty
openings”
KC: “You can’t win a
vote unless you have a
listen”
KC: “There’s some
value in grant writing”
KC: “Nobody comes to
press releases anymore”
264
265
●
●
In Vivo
In Vivo
266
●
In Vivo
267
●
In Vivo
268
●
In Vivo
269
●
In Vivo
270
●
In Vivo
271
●
In Vivo
272
●
In Vivo
273
●
In Vivo
274
●
In Vivo
275
●
In Vivo
276
●
In Vivo
277
●
In Vivo
278
●
In Vivo
279
●
In Vivo
280
●
In Vivo
281
●
In Vivo
282
●
In Vivo
283
●
In Vivo
284
●
In Vivo
245
All coded
segments
1
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
KC: “You need to be
able to communicate
information very
quickly”
SJ: “I was quite
enamored with the field
of study”
SJ: “I’ve not been riskaverse”
SJ: “I don’t have an
average day”
SJ: “I always tended to
do this by the finger in
the dam approach”
SJ: “Surround yourself
with good people”
SJ: “Learning by doing”
SJ: “I’m not any more
special than anybody
else is”
SJ: “It’s a little like
herding cats”
SJ: “It’s just folks trying
to figure things out”
SJ: “They’re working
towards the higher
good”
SJ: “Everybody’s
touching the elephant
but in a different place”
SJ: “I don’t rely on
individuals, I rely on
stuff”
SJ: “You have to let
people ask their
questions”
SJ: “I don’t know what
they already know”
SJ: “There isn’t a one
thing”
SJ: “I just never
stagnate, I just keep
moving”
BB: “My job has
become more of an
assimilator of
information”
BB: “I graduate and
realize that I wanted to
do something”
285
●
In Vivo
286
●
In Vivo
287
●
In Vivo
288
●
In Vivo
289
●
In Vivo
290
●
In Vivo
291
292
●
●
In Vivo
In Vivo
293
●
In Vivo
294
●
In Vivo
295
●
In Vivo
296
●
In Vivo
297
●
In Vivo
298
●
In Vivo
299
●
In Vivo
300
●
In Vivo
301
●
In Vivo
302
●
In Vivo
303
●
In Vivo
246
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
0.01
1
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
BB: “I found out that I
was good at it”
BB: “It was a lot of onthe-job training”
BB: “It just kind of
happened”
BB: “It’s almost
impossible to draw that
straight line”
BB: “You don’t want to
embarrass anybody”
BB: “I would say I
mentor all the time”
TR: “There is no
average day”
TR: “I learned a great
deal from him about
small “p” politics”
TR: “Being positioned
to move on relatively
short notice”
TR: “There’s a decent
amount of bureaucracy
involved”
TR: “You have to be
poised to move”
TR: “It comes down to
the measurement and
the money”
TR: “You just have to
be multilingual”
TR: “You have to have
the patience and the
persistence”
TR: “It’s just really
understanding the
cyclical nature of this”
TR: “You may be at this
for a while”
TR: “That’s the power
of the group”
MM: “It’s been a zoo
around here”
MM: “I really got
intrigued by what
community colleges
were doing”
MM: “Mentors was a
critical part of my
career path”
304
●
In Vivo
305
●
In Vivo
306
●
In Vivo
307
●
In Vivo
308
●
In Vivo
309
●
In Vivo
310
●
In Vivo
311
●
In Vivo
312
●
In Vivo
313
●
In Vivo
314
●
In Vivo
315
●
In Vivo
316
●
In Vivo
317
●
In Vivo
318
●
In Vivo
319
●
In Vivo
320
●
In Vivo
321
●
In Vivo
322
●
In Vivo
323
●
In Vivo
247
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
MM: “There’s an innate
ability to really good,
successful leader”
MM: “After that, my
day is somebody else’s
day”
MM: “Don’t ever think
that you ever saturate
me because you can’t”
MM: “Knowledge is
power”
MM: “I’m able to put it
all together”
MM: “It’s just no two
days alike”
MM: “Walk that fine
line and stay nonpartisan”
MM: “You know, if it
looks like a duck…”
MM: “There’s no
textbook can tell you
that”
MM: “I came in to
make change”
MM: “I wasn’t trumped
with inside information”
MM: “I felt most
successful is in helping
other leaders”
MM: “They have their
own sandbox that they
play in”
MM: “I guess it’s not
my DNA”
MM: “It was just fast
and furious in here”
MM: “I’ve outlived the
life expectancy”
MM: “Surround
yourself by people that
can make it happen”
MM: “Look for new,
exciting ideas”
DL: “It was too good an
opportunity to pass up”
DL: “What people are
going to be talking
about today”
324
●
In Vivo
325
●
In Vivo
326
●
In Vivo
327
●
In Vivo
328
●
In Vivo
329
●
In Vivo
330
●
In Vivo
331
●
In Vivo
332
●
In Vivo
333
●
In Vivo
334
●
In Vivo
335
●
In Vivo
336
●
In Vivo
337
●
In Vivo
338
●
In Vivo
339
●
In Vivo
340
●
In Vivo
341
●
In Vivo
342
●
In Vivo
343
●
In Vivo
248
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
DL: “My leadership
came out of the
academic preparation I
had”
DL: “You have to sort
of have an inclination”
DL: “Showboat on
occasion”
DL: “You have to find a
way in which you can
speak to power”
DL: “You cannot be a
political ideologue”
DL: “There’s no reason
to try to bow to jerks”
DL: “It’s one of the
most exciting times”
DL: “There are a lot of
ideas out there”
DL: “Many are willing
to except untested
ideas”
DL: “Some of the ideas,
frankly, are not good
ideas”
DL: “Just because they
have money doesn’t
make them bad”
DL: “Achieving equity
takes money”
DL: “I have worked
very hard to hire
exceptional people”
DL: “You can’t be too
shy and get your point
across”
DL: “I try to be
provocative”
DL: “I made an enemy,
but also tried to be
honest and forthright”
DL: “We try very hard
to use data to support
everything we do”
DL: “Sometimes we’re
late to the game”
DL: “Sometimes it’s me
that gets in the way”
DL: “They were
working very hard to
make sure we failed”
344
●
In Vivo
345
●
In Vivo
346
●
In Vivo
347
●
In Vivo
348
●
In Vivo
349
●
In Vivo
350
●
In Vivo
351
●
In Vivo
352
●
In Vivo
353
●
In Vivo
354
●
In Vivo
355
●
In Vivo
356
●
In Vivo
357
●
In Vivo
358
●
In Vivo
359
●
In Vivo
360
●
In Vivo
361
●
In Vivo
362
●
In Vivo
363
●
In Vivo
249
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
DL: “Look for the
advantage and the
opportunity”
DL: “Don’t be so
foolish as to spit in the
wind”
DL: “You don’t want to
become a cynic”
MT: “There was no
tornado warning”
MT: “I’m at a meeting
about every single hour
of every single day”
MT: “It’s going to be a
lot of work”
MT: “We have good
partners”
MT: “I want to help
people be better”
MT: “There’s never
enough money”
MT: “That’s what
legislators wanna hear”
MT: “It’s a necessary
part of our business”
MT: “Connecting in a
meaningful way”
MT: “You don’t
develop that
relationship overnight”
SK: “I have to generate
the money to do the
things I want to do”
SK: “You have to be
engaged with them”
SK: “We’ve been
strictly nonpartisan
here”
SK: “The secret to our
success”
SK: “Wherever you are,
you gotta make it work
for you”
SK: “You have to know
how to balance both
worlds”
SK: “I had a front row
seat, ringside seat”
SK: “How do you get to
be in the hallway?”
364
●
In Vivo
365
●
In Vivo
366
●
In Vivo
367
●
In Vivo
368
●
In Vivo
369
●
In Vivo
370
●
In Vivo
371
●
In Vivo
372
●
In Vivo
373
●
In Vivo
374
●
In Vivo
375
●
In Vivo
376
●
In Vivo
377
●
In Vivo
378
●
In Vivo
379
●
In Vivo
380
●
In Vivo
381
●
In Vivo
382
●
In Vivo
383
●
In Vivo
384
●
In Vivo
250
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
SK: “Don’t ever expect
anybody to pat you on
the back”
SK: “You have to be
paying attention to
stuff”
SK: “I don’t know how
I keep up with it either”
SK: “They need to think
of themselves as
insurance salesmen”
Gender: Male
385
●
In Vivo
386
●
In Vivo
387
●
In Vivo
388
●
In Vivo
389
●
390
●
391
●
392
●
393
●
394
●
395
●
396
●
397
●
398
●
399
●
400
●
401
●
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
All coded
segments
1
All coded
segments %
0.01
Docs
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
12
0.16
12
Gender: Female
11
0.15
11
Race/Ethnicity: White
18
0.24
18
Race/Ethnicity: African
American
4
0.05
4
Race/Ethnicity:
Unknown
1
0.01
1
Education: Public
College/University
8
0.11
8
Education: Private
College/University
7
0.09
6
Education: Mixed
Pub/Priv
College/University
Education Level:
Bachelor’s Only
10
0.13
9
2
0.03
2
Education Level:
Master’s
5
0.07
5
Education Level:
Doctoral/JD
16
0.21
16
Education Degree:
Higher Education
Leadership or Related
Education Degree:
Political Science/Policy
Studies/Government
13
0.17
13
4
0.05
4
251
1
Count
Color
402
●
403
●
404
●
405
●
406
●
407
●
408
●
409
●
410
●
411
●
412
●
413
●
414
●
415
●
416
●
417
●
418
●
Parent code
Code
All coded
segments
4
All coded
segments %
0.05
Docs
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Education Degree:
Psychology
Education Degree:
General Education
7
0.09
7
Education Degree:
Economics
1
0.01
1
Education Degree:
English and Speech
3
0.04
3
Education Degree:
Guidance and
Counseling
Education Degree:
History
2
0.03
2
6
0.08
6
Education Degree:
Sociology
2
0.03
2
Education Degree:
Science/Applied
Science
Education Degree:
Social Work
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
Education Degree: Law
1
0.01
1
Education Degree:
Anthropology
1
0.01
1
Education Degree:
Classics
1
0.01
1
Education Degree:
Foreign Language(s)
2
0.03
2
Education Degree:
Urban and Regional
Planning
Education Degree: Art
History
1
0.01
1
1
0.01
1
Education Degree:
Physics
1
0.01
1
Education Degree:
Mathematics
1
0.01
1
252
4
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
Education: Community
College
419
●
420
●
Participant
Attribute:
Demographics
Productivity
421
422
423
424
●
●
●
●
Productivity
Productivity
Productivity
Propositions
425
●
Propositions
426
●
Propositions
427
●
Propositions
428
●
Propositions
429
●
Propositions
430
●
Propositions
431
●
Propositions
432
●
Propositions
433
●
Propositions
434
●
Propositions
435
●
Propositions
436
●
Propositions
437
●
Propositions
438
●
Propositions
439
440
441
●
●
●
Propositions
Propositions
Propositions
442
●
Propositions
443
●
Propositions
Performance-Based
Funding
Institutional Leadership
Finance and Business
University Research
Prop 1: Leadership
Traits
Prop 1: Leadership
Skills
Prop 2: Leadership
Values
Prop 3: Radoff Game
Theory Quad
Immersion
Prop 3: Radoff Game
Theory Quad
Cooperation
Prop 3: Radoff Game
Theory Quad
Achievement
Prop 3: Radoff Game
Theory Quad
Competition
Prop 4: Novel and
useful policy solutions
Prop 5: CPS in Policy
Formulation
Advocacy
Implementation
Prop 6: Economic
Game Strategy
Prop 7: Information
Collection
Prop 7: Information
Dissemination
Prop 8: Use of Social
Networking
Prop 9: Political Traits
Prop 9: Political Skills
Prop 10: Formal
Learning Process
Prop 10: Informal
Learning Process
Prop 10: Non-formal
Learning Process
253
All coded
segments
2
All coded
segments %
0.03
Docs
20
0.26
9
5
7
2
43
0.07
0.09
0.03
0.57
5
5
1
16
76
1.00
15
75
0.99
20
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
0
0.00
0
99
1.31
44
52
0.69
24
145
1.92
62
24
0.32
15
12
0.16
4
83
1.10
24
220
2.91
45
213
2.82
34
43
148
80
0.57
1.96
1.06
13
23
23
191
2.53
23
17
0.22
7
2
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
Research
Questions
Research
Questions
Research
Questions
Research
Questions
Primary RQ: What is
Role of PE in HE PM?
SRQb: What are Chars.
and Behs. of PEs?
SRQa: Who are PEs and
What is their Focus?
SRQd: How do PEs
Develop Skills and
Strategies?
SRQc: What are
Strategies Used by PEs
to Overcome Barriers?
Interstate Regional
Level
444
●
445
●
446
●
447
●
448
●
Research
Questions
449
●
450
●
451
●
452
●
453
●
454
●
455
●
456
●
457
●
458
●
459
●
Selection
Attribute: Policy
Arena
Selection
Attribute: Policy
Arena
Selection
Attribute: Policy
Arena
Selection
Attribute: Policy
Arena
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
All coded
segments
387
All coded
segments %
5.12
Docs
271
3.58
24
224
2.96
95
219
2.90
24
225
2.98
27
8
0.11
7
National Level
29
0.38
24
2-Yr/Community
College
22
0.29
15
4-Yr or Non-Institution
Specific
13
0.17
11
College Access
38
0.50
30
College Affordability
50
0.66
36
Technology
5
0.07
5
Information
6
0.08
5
Productivity
8
0.11
7
College Completion and
Curriculum
39
0.52
30
Accountability/Complia
nce/Accreditation
22
0.29
17
254
93
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
All coded
segments
45
All coded
segments %
0.60
Docs
460
●
Elevation of
Community Colleges
461
●
462
●
463
●
464
●
465
●
466
●
467
●
468
●
469
●
470
●
471
●
472
●
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Selection
Attribute:
Sustain/Innov
Policy Focus
Success
Attribute:
Measure of
Success in
PEship
Success
Attribute:
Measure of
Success in
PEship
Success
Attribute:
Measure of
Success in
PEship
Typology
Attribute:
PEship Style
Typology
Attribute:
PEship Style
Typology
Attribute:
PEship Style
Typology
Attribute:
PEship Style
Teacher Preparation
4
0.05
4
Gun Control
3
0.04
3
K-12 to HE
8
0.11
6
Multi-state Data System
7
0.09
7
International Education
1
0.01
1
Success Attribute:
Emergent (0-5 years)
2
0.03
2
Success Attribute:
Master (>10 years)
17
0.22
17
Success Attribute:
Established (6-10 years)
4
0.05
4
Typology Attribute:
Maverick
7
0.09
2
Typology Attribute:
Educator
31
0.41
17
Typology Attribute:
Chain Link or Conduit
37
0.49
18
Typology Attribute:
Visionary
21
0.28
7
255
24
Count
Color
Parent code
Code
All coded
segments
12
All coded
segments %
0.16
Docs
473
●
Typology Attribute:
Problem Solver
474
●
475
●
Typology
Attribute:
PEship Style
Typology
Attribute:
PEship Style
Typology
Attribute:
PEship Style
Typology Attribute:
Advisor
37
0.49
14
Typology Attribute:
Advocate/Lobbyist/
Influencer
41
0.54
17
256
9
Appendix I. Documents Reviewed in Phase 2 of This Study
American Association of Community Colleges. (2012, April). Reclaiming the American
dream: A report from the 21st Century Commission on the Future of Community
Colleges. Washington, DC: Author. Available from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/21stCenturyReport
American Association of Community Colleges. (2014). Empowering community colleges
to build the nation’s future: An implementation guide. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from www.aacc21stcenturycenter.org
Baime, D. S. (2013, June 20). Witness testimony. House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
hearing: The value of education for veterans at public, private and for-profit
colleges and universities, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://veterans.house.gov/witness-testimony/mr-david-baime
Baime, D. S., & Mullin, C. M. (2011, July). Promoting educational opportunity: The Pell
grant program at community colleges (AACC Policy Brief 2011-03PBL).
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Briefs/Documents/PolicyBrief_Pell%20G
rant.pdf
Baum, S., Conklin, K., & Johnson, N. (2013, November 12). Stop penalizing poor
college students. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/opinion/stop-penalizing-poor-collegestudents.html
Bell, A. (2014, November 14). University System of Georgia enrollment update and
trends. Presented at the USG Enrollment Management Symposium, Atlanta, GA.
257
Retrieved from
http://www.completegeorgia.org/interact/EMS/presentations/Angela-Bell-USGEnrollment-Update-Trends.pdf
Board of Education, State of Iowa. (2014, August 7). Minutes, State Board of Education
meeting, Des Moines, IA. Retrieved from
https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/August%20State%20Boar
d%20Minutes%20Final.pdf
Bragg, D. D. (2012, April 30). The unsung sector: An interview with Under Secretary
Martha J. Kanter about America’s college completion agenda and community
colleges. Champaign, IL: Office of Community College Research and
Leadership. Retrieved from http://occrl.illinois.edu/articles/the-unsung-sector-aninterview-with-under-secretary-martha-j-kanter-about-americas-collegecompletion-agenda-and-community-colleges/
Brand, B. (November, 2009). High school career academies: A 40-year proven model for
improving college and career readiness. Paper commissioned by The National
Career Academy Coalition. Retrieved from
http://www.aypf.org/documents/092409CareerAcademiesPolicyPaper.pdf
Brand, B., & Valent, A. (2013, March). Improving college and career readiness for
students with disabilities. Prepared for the College and Career Readiness and
Success Center at American Institutes for Research and American Youth Policy
Forum. Retrieved from
http://www.ccrscenter.org/sites/default/files/Improving%20College%20and%20C
areer%20Readiness%20for%20Students%20with%20Disabilities.pdf
258
Callan, P. (2010, March 23). The politics of disappointment. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/03/23/callan
CEOs for Cities. (2011, February 16). The opportunity challenge: Final report. Retrieved
from
http://www.memphistn.gov/portals/0/pdf_forms/OppChallenge_Final%20Report.
pdf
Conklin, K. (2014, June 19). Bye-bye FAFSA: Bipartisan proposal reflects HCM
recommendations (Blog post). HCM Strategists Blog. Retrieved from
http://hcmstrategists.com/bye-bye-fafsa-bipartisan-proposal-reflects-hcmrecommendations/
Doyle, W. R. (2010, December). The politics of higher education reform (Working
paper). Prepared for Reform and Innovation in the Changing Ecology of U.S.
Higher Education, School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Eastern Kentucky University. (2014, August 25). EKU signs transfer agreement with
KCTCS. Retrieved from http://www.eku.edu/news/eku-signs-transfer-agreementkctcs
Fain, P. (2012, August 14). Texas gets an incomplete. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/14/gates-foundation-nixesfunding-texas-completion-project
Florida College Access Network. (2014). Third Annual Florida College Access and
Success Summit garners record attendance. Retrieved from
http://www.floridacollegeaccess.org/2014/11/05/third-annual-florida-collegeaccess-and-success-summit-garners-record-attendance/
259
Grush, M. (2013, November 20). Technology: Change is how you use it: A Q and A with
Sally Johnstone. Campus Technology. Retrieved from
http://campustechnology.com/articles/2013/11/20/technology-change-is-how-youuse-it.aspx?=CTCLV
Halaska, T., & Conklin, K. (2011, December 13). The great education reads of 2011. The
Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terrellhalaska/the-great-education-reads_b_1145600.html
Heller, D. E. (2009). The context of higher education reform in the United States. Higher
Education Management and Policy, 21(2), 69–86.
Home Base Iowa Education Working Group. (2014, November). Report of
recommendations. Retrieved from
http://www.regents.iowa.gov/homebaseiowa/HBIEWGFINALREPORT.pdf
Hooker, S., & Brand, B. (2009, October). Success at every step: How 23 programs
support youth on the path to college and beyond. Washington, DC: American
Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved from
http://www.aypf.org/SuccessAtEveryStep.pdf
Ignash, J. (2013, September 10). Presentation to the UNF Board of Trustees. Retrieved
from
http://www.unf.edu/uploadedFiles/president/trustees/2013/Sep10/04a%20BOT%2
0Retreat%2009-10-2013%20Dr.%20Jan%20Ignash%201%20of%201.pdf
Ignash, J. (2013, September 17). Gap analysis: Board of Governors’ Commission on
Florida Higher Education Access and Degree Attainment. Presentation to the
260
State Board of Education, Tallahassee, FL. Retrieved from
http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7731/urlt/0074823-pres.pdf
Ignash, J. (2013, November 20). Interim Chancellor’s report. Minutes of the Board of
Governors, State University System of Florida, Miami, FL. Retrieved from
http://www.flbog.edu/documents_meetings/0185_0765_5521_622%20BOG%202
013_11_21_Board_of_Governors_minutes_TEMPLATE.pdf
Iowa Association of Community College Trustees. (2013, August 21-updated). 2013
legislative session: Summary report (Reflects Governor’s final actions). Retrieved
from
http://www.iowacentral.edu/government_affairs/2013LegislativeSummary.pdf
Iowa House of Representatives. (2013). Declarations for Steve Ovel. Retrieved from
http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/coolice/default.asp?Category=Matt&service=Declarations&frame=2&lobbyist=419
Jamelia. (2011, June). Title blinded. Publication information blinded.
Jamelia. (2011, September). Title blinded. Publication information blinded.
Johnstone, S., & Finnigan, A. (2013, February 7). Why competency-based degree
programs make sense now. The evolllution: Illuminating the lifelong learning
movement. Retrieved from http://www.evolllution.com/program_planning/whycompetency-based-degree-programs-make-sense-now/
Kanter, M., Ochoa, E., Nassif, R., & Chong, F. (2011, July 21). Meeting President
Obama’s college completion Goal. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/meeting-president-obamas2020-college-completion-goal
261
Katsinas, S. G., & Koh, J. P. (2012, November). A study of Pell grants in Alabama.
Report commissioned by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education.
Tuscaloosa, AL: Education Policy Center, College of Education, The University
of Alabama. Retrieved from
http://uaedpolicy.ua.edu/uploads/2/1/3/2/21326282/alabama_pell_funding_.pdf
Katsinas, S. G., Davis, J. E., Friedel, J. N., Koh, J. P., & Grant, P. D. (2013, February).
The impact of new Pell grant restrictions on community colleges: A three state
study of Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Tuscaloosa, AL: Education Policy
Center, College of Education, The University of Alabama. Retrieved from
http://uaedpolicy.ua.edu/uploads/2/1/3/2/21326282/new_three_state_study_.pdf
Katsinas, S. G., Davis, J. E., Koh, J. P., & Grant, P. D. (2012, December). Pell grant’s
vital role in lifting up Mississippi. Tuscaloosa, AL: Education Policy Center,
College of Education, The University of Alabama. Retrieved from
http://uaedpolicy.ua.edu/uploads/2/1/3/2/21326282/pell_grants_vital_role_.pdf
Kelderman, E. (2013, December 2). Accreditors now find themselves under critical
review. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on from
http://chronicle.com/article/Accreditors-NowFind/143325/?cid=wb&utm_source=wb&utm_medium=en
Kelly, P., & Whitfield, C. (2014). Playing the numbers: Employment outcomes in the
two-year sector: The witch hunt for college programs that don’t pay off. Change:
The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(3), 60–63.
Kenneth. (2014, January). Title blinded. Publication information blinded.
Kenneth. (2014, January). Title blinded. Publication information blinded.
262
Kenneth. (2014). Title blinded. Publication information blinded.
Kentucky General Assembly, 2014 Regular Session, Senate. (2014). SR310. A resolution
honoring founding Kentucky Community and Technical College System President
Michael B. McCall upon the announcement of his retirement. Retrieved from
http://legiscan.com/KY/legislation/2014?type=resolution&status=passed
Kirkwood Community College. (2014, April 14). Kirkwood leaders celebrate success and
support [Press release]. Kirkwood Report: News from Kirkwood Community
College. Retrieved from http://kirkwoodonlinenews.org/?p=5797
Lederman, D. (2013, August 14). Kanter joins the exodus. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/14/martha-kanter-leaveeducation-department
Longanecker, D. (2006, October 20). ATFA: A nice four-letter word. Presented at the
Changing Direction: Integrating Higher Education Financial Aid and Finance
Policy Higher Education Funding Symposium, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from
http://www.wiche.edu/PPT/071006_LES_MN.pdf
Longanecker, D. (2014, November 10). The federal role in postsecondary education: A
brief history of everything you ever needed to know about that - and some
thoughts about the future. Presented at the Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education Semi-Annual Commission Meeting, Denver, CO. Retrieved
from http://www.wiche.edu/PPT/111014_CommissionMtg_CO.pdf
Longanecker, D. (2014, September, 11). Intentionally shared responsibility for financing
public higher education in Washington. Presented at the Washington Legislative
263
Higher Education Work Group Meeting, Seattle, WA. Retrieved from
http://www.wiche.edu/PPT/091114_LegHEmtg_WA.pdf
McCall, M. B. (2014, March 26). An action alert from KCTCS President Michael B.
McCall. Versailles, KY: KCTCS Buildsmart: Investment for Kentucky
Competitiveness. http://buildsmartky.com/2014/03/26/an-action-alert-from-kctcspresident-michael-b-mccall/
Media Advisory. (2011, December 19). Title blinded.
Merrow, J. (2009, December 8). The future of higher education: An interview with Pat
Callan. Taking Note [Blog]. Retrieved from
http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=3558
Morrison, J. L. (1999). Telecommunications and the future: An interview with Sally M.
Johnstone. On the Horizon, 7(3), 2–3.
Morrison, J. L., & O’Banion, T. (1998, April). A learning college for the 21st century:
An interview with Dr. Terry O’Banion. The Technology Source. Retrieved from
http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1034
Mullin, C. M. (2012, October 10). New AACC brief highlights the transfer mission of
community colleges (Blog post). Champaign, IL: Office of Community College
Research and Leadership. Retrieved from http://occrl.illinois.edu/new-aacc-briefhighlights-the-transfer-mission-of-community-colleges/
Mullin, C. M. (2012, February). Why access matters: The community college student
body (AACC Policy Brief 2012-01PBL). Washington, DC: American Association
of Community Colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Briefs/Documents/PB_AccessMatters.pdf
264
Mullin, C. M., & Lebesch, A. (2010, March). Moving success from the shadows: Data
systems that link education and workforce outcomes (AACC Policy Brief 201001PBL). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Retrieved from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Publications/Briefs/Documents/successshadows_03162
010.pdf
Office of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education. (2014, October).
College affordability and transparency explanation form (CATEF) 2015-2017:
Supporting statement part B: OMB Paperwork Reduction Act submission (OMB
No. 1840-0822 v.3). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ve
d=0
CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reginfo.gov%2Fpublic%2Fdo%2FDow
nloadDocument%3FdocumentID%3D510308%26version%3D0&ei=Zy6qVKTD
BsvkggSfuISYDg&usg=AFQjCNFn71hIxPppnmDGGscgXdk4UwdRQQ
OpenSecrets.org. (2014, October 27). Influence and Lobbying: Lobbying: Industry:
Education: Summary. Washington, DC: Center for Responsive Politics. Retrieved
from https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=W04&year=2014
Ovel, S. (2012). Personal statement and attached supporting documentation in support of
the Marvin D. “Swede” Johnson Achievement Award. (Unpublished manuscripts)
Perna, L. W., Rowan-Kenyon, H., Bell, A., Thomas, S., & Li, C. (2008). A typology of
federal and state programs designed to promote college enrollment. Journal of
Higher Education, 79(3), 243–267.
265
Reindl, T. (2008, January 27). Reality check: The privatization of public higher education
[Blog post]. The Higher Ed Watch Blog. Retrieved from
http://www.newamerica.net/blog/higher-ed-watch/2009/reality-checkprivatization-public-higher-education-15809
Reindl, T. (2012, November 6). Compete to complete: How states can improve higher
education for adults [Interview excerpt]. The evolllution: Illuminating the Lifelong
Learning Movement. Retrieved from http://www.evolllution.com/opinions/audiocompete-to-complete-how-states-can-improve-higher-education-for-adults/
Reindl, T. (2013, April 24). Written statement of Travis Reindl, Program Director,
Education Division, NGA Center for Best Practices before the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
Training, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/travis_reindl_-_written_statement__4_24_13.pdf
Steinbach, D. (2014, July). Influence and lobbying: Lobbying: Industry: Education:
Background. Washington, DC: Center for Responsive Politics. Retrieved from
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/background.php?id=W04&year=2014
The White House. (2014, May 6). For Cinco de Mayo, President Obama focuses on
investing in "100,000 Strong in the Americas" (Blog post). Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/05/06/cinco-de-mayo-president-obamafocuses-investing-100000-strongamericas
266
University of Phoenix. (2008, May 5). University of Phoenix forms National Research
Center: Advisory board charter members named [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.phoenix.edu/news/releases/2008/05/national-research-center.html
Walsh, S. (2012, June 13). Educating our way to a better future [Blog]. Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2012/06/Educating-Our-Way-to-aBetter-Future
Washington, T. N. (2011). What were they thinking?! An exploration of the Connecticut
Commission’s education reform strategy (Unpublished master’s integrative
project). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
Washington, T. N. (2014, May). Charting the course: Navigating pathways to success.
Presented at the 2014 Connections Conference, Sanford/Lake Mary, FL.
Retrieved from
http://floridacollegesystem.com/sites/www/Uploads/files/Events/3NicoleWashing
ton.pdf
Weerts, D., Sanford, T., & Reinert, L. (2012, December). College funding in context:
Understanding the difference in higher education appropriations across the
states. New York, NY: Demos. Retrieved from
http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/HigherEducationReportDe
mos.pdf
West Virginia University Institute of Technology Revitalization Committee. (2012,
December). Final report of the WVU Institute of Technology Revitalization
Committee. Retrieved from http://www.wvhepc.com/wp-
267
content/uploads/2013/12/Final_Report_of_the_WVU_Tech_Revitalization_Com
mittee_12-7-12.pdf
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2014). Ten questions to Terry
O’Banion. Chandler, AZ: League for Innovation in the Community College.
Retrieved from
http://www.wiche.edu/info/waccal/annual2014/meetingMaterials/tenQuestionsOb
anion.pdf
Wheelan, B. S. (2012, May 14). Letter to The Honorable Jerry N. Govan, Jr., House of
Representatives, District No. 95, Orangeburg County. Decatur, GA: Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. Retrieved from
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/thetandd.com/content/tncms/assets
/v3/editorial/7/3d/73db9388-a0b6-11e1-9880001a4bcf887a/4fb5f29b28666.pdf.pdf
Wheelan, B. S., & Elgart, M. A. (2014, September 26). Say no to ‘checklist’
accountability (Essay). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/09/26/ratings-and-scorecardswrong-kind-higher-ed-accountability-essay
Whitfield, C. (2012, August 10). The growing pressure to use workforce data: What to
use, how to use it. Presented at the SHEEO Higher Education Policy Conference,
Chicago, IL.
Witt, A. (2013, Fall). Community colleges and the increasing importance of data: An
interview with David Baime. Champaign, IL: Office of Community College
268
Research and Leadership. Retrieved from
http://occrl.illinois.edu/files/Newsletter/features/BaimeInterview.pdf
269
REFERENCES
Abelson, D. E. (2002). Do think tanks matter? Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s Press.
Adams, S., & Kriesi, H. (2007). The network approach. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories
of the policy process (pp. 129–154). Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.
Adler, B. (2007, June 9). Inside the higher ed lobby. Washington Monthly. Retrieved
from http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0709.adler.html
Anderson Crow, D. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs, issue experts, and water rights policy
change in Colorado. Review of Policy Research, 27(3), 299–315.
Ashworth, K. H. (1972). Scholars and statesmen: Higher education and government
policy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Auxter, T. (2010). Radical transformations in higher education: Where do we go from
here? Thought & Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 26(Fall 2010), 59–
70.
Bailey, M. J., & Dynarski, S. M. (2011, December). Gains and gaps: Changing
inequality in U.S. college entry and completion (Policy Studies Center Research
Report 11-746). Ann Arbor, MI: Policy Studies Center, Institute for Social
Research, University of Michigan. Retrieved from
http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr11-746.pdf
Bagilhole, B., & White, K. (Eds.) (2013). Generation and gender in academia. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.
270
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instabilities in American
politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bergeron, D. A., Baylor, E., & Flores, A. (2014, October 27). A great recession, a great
retreat: A call for a public college quality compact. Washington, DC: Center for
American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/highereducation/report/2014/10/27/99731/a-great-recession-a-great-retreat/
Berman, I. M. (2008). The rise and adoption of middle grades literacy policy in the State
of Florida (Doctoral dissertation). The George Washington University,
Washington, DC.
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.
Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1992). Tax innovation in the states: Capitalizing on
political opportunity. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 715–742.
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). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Blavoukos, S., & Bourantonis, D. (2011). Chairs as policy entrepreneurs in multilateral
negotiations. Review of International Studies, 37(2), 653–672.
Blavoukos, S., & Bourantonis, D. (2012). Policy entrepreneurs and foreign policy
change: The Greek-Turkish rapprochement in the 1990s. Government and
Opposition, 47(4), 597–617.
271
Blumenstyk, G. (2014, May 12). At 2 conferences, big claims are staked on higher
education’s future. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/At-2-Conferences-Big-Claims/146461/
Blumenthal, D. (2009). Portrait of a policy and political entrepreneur. Health Affairs,
28(6), w1,037–w1,039.
Böcher, M. (2011, August). The role of policy entrepreneurs in regional governance
processes. Paper presented at the 6th ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik,
Iceland.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Borgatti, S. P., & Ofem, B (2010). Overview: Social network theory and analysis. In A. J.
Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 17–29).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of
new ideas (Updated ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Botterill, L. C. (2013). Are policy entrepreneurs really decisive in achieving policy
change? Drought policy in the USA and Australia. Australian Journal of Politics
and History, 59(1), 97–112.
Brant, B. L., Farmer, J. A., Jr., & Buckmaster, A. (1993). Cognitive apprenticeship
approach to helping adults learning. In D. Flannery (Ed.), Applying cognitive
learning theory to adult learning (pp. 69–78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
272
Brewer, D. J., & Tierney, W. G. (2011). Barriers to innovation in U.S. higher education.
In B. Wildavsky, A. P. Kelly, & K. Carey (Eds.), Reinventing higher education:
The promise of innovation (pp. 11–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (1997). Public and private financing of higher education:
Shaping public policy for the future. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on
Education, The Oryx Press.
Cech, J. (2012, February 1). Aligning and advancing. The evolllution: Illuminating the
lifelong learning movement. Retrieved from
http://www.evolllution.com/opinions/aligning-and-advancing/
Clark, J. (2000). Policy attributes and state policy innovation. Southeastern Political
Review, 28(1), 3–25.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of
Agenda Building (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, A. M., & Kisker, C. B. (2010). The shaping of American higher education (2nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.
Cohen, N. (2011). Policy entrepreneurs and the design of public policy: Conceptual
framework and the case of the national health insurance law in Israel (Working
paper series No. 11). Raanana, Israel: The Open University of Israel.
273
Collihan, K. M. (2009). The politics of exchange rate regime choice. The role of policy
entrepreneurs (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara,
CA.
Cook, C. E. (1998). Lobbying for higher education: How colleges and universities
influence federal policy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Corbett, A. (2003). Ideas, institutions, and policy entrepreneurs: Towards a new history
of higher education in the European Community. European Journal of Education,
38(3), 315–330.
Corbin, T. B. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs and focusing events: Congressional agenda
setting after Hurricane Katrina (Doctoral dissertation). The Claremont Graduate
University, Claremont, CA.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daly, A. J. (2010). Mapping the terrain: Social network theory and educational change. In
A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 1–16).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Davis, B. (2007). Mission changes in the Utah system of higher education (Doctoral
dissertation). The University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Davis, K., Christodoulou, J., Seider, S. & Gardner, H. (2012). The theory of multiple
intelligences. Retrieved from
274
https://howardgardner01.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/443-davis-christodoulouseider-mi-article.pdf
Davis, O. A., Dempster, M. A. H., & Wildavsky, A. (1966). A theory of the budgetary
process. The American Political Science Review, 60(3), 529–547.
Dees, J. G., & Battle Anderson, B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship:
Building on two schools of practice and thought. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.),
Research on social entrepreneurship: Understanding and contributing to an
emerging field (pp. 39–66). Indianapolis, IN: Association for Research on
Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action.
Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of valuation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Dixit, A. K., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1991). Thinking strategically: The competitive edge in
business, politics, and everyday life. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Doig, J. W., & Hargrove, E. (Eds). (1987). Leadership and innovation: A biographical
perspective on entrepreneurs in government. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Drayton, W. (2002). The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as
business. California Management Review, 44(3), 120–133.
Drucker, P. F. (1964). Managing for results. New York, NY: Harper & Rowe.
Duderstadt, J. J., Atkins, D. E., & Van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher education in the
digital age: Technology issues and strategies for American colleges and
universities. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dunn, W. N. (2008). Public policy analysis: An introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
275
Dutta, P. K. (1999). Strategies and games: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch
meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(3), 283–301.
Erickson, B. H. (1979). Some problems of inference from chain data. Sociological
Methodology, 10(1979), 276–302.
Fang, L. (2014, February 19). Where have all the lobbyists gone? The Nation. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.thenation.com/article/178460/shadow-lobbying-complex
Finn, C. E., Jr. (1978). Scholars, dollars and bureaucrats (Studies in higher education
policy). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Floyd, D. L. (2005). Community college baccalaureate in the U.S.: Models, programs,
and issues. In D. L. Floyd, M. L. Skolnik, & K. P. Walker (Eds.), The community
college baccalaureate: Emerging trends and policy issues (pp. 25–47). Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Fortune, T. (2012). Should higher education curriculum develop political acumen among
students? Higher Education Research and Development, 31(4), 611–613.
Frederick, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). Washington, DC: AERA.
Freeman, J. L. (1965). The political process: Executive bureau-legislative committee
relations (Revised ed). New York, NY: Random House.
Friedel, J. N., Killacker, J., Miller, E., & Katsinas, S. (2014). Fifty state systems of
community colleges (4th ed.). Johnson City, TN: The Overmountain Press.
276
Gais, T., & Lawrence, C. (2000). The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government:
From state to national focus on political and policy studies. In L. H. Leverty & D.
R. Colburn (Eds.), Understanding the role of public policy centers and institutes
in fostering university-government partnerships, New Directions for Higher
Education, 112 (pp. 75–88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Garrett, B. (2001). The role of policy entrepreneurs in policy diffusion (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Giroux, H. A. (2006). The Giroux reader. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Godwin, R. K., Ainsworth, S., & Godwin, E. K. (2012). Lobbying and policymaking: The
public pursuit of private interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Golden, E. D., (2010). Creativity and innovation. In R. A. Couto (Ed.), Political and civic
leadership: A reference handbook (Vol. 2) (pp. 928–936). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2012, July 2). Renewing the commitment. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5
Goldrick-Rab, S., & Shaw, K. M. (2007). Tracking how ideas become higher education
policy and practice. In K. M. Shaw, and D. E. Heller (Eds.), State postsecondary
education research: New methods to inform policy and practice (pp. 77–96).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
277
Goncalo, J. A., Flynn, F. J., & Kim, S. H. (2010). Are two narcissists better than one?
The link between narcissism, perceived creativity and creative performance.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1,484-1,495.
Gray, V. (1994). Competition, emulation, and policy innovation. In L. Dodd & C. Jillson
(Eds.), New Perspectives on American Politics (pp. 230–248). Washington, DC:
CQ Press.
Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating
success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39, 188–192.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate
power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R K. (1991). The servant as leader. In W. C. Zimmerli, K. Richter, & M.
Holzinger (Eds.), Corporate ethics and corporate governance (pp. 79–85). Berlin,
Germany: Springer. (Originally published in 1970)
Grossback, L. J., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Peterson, D. A. M. (2004). Ideology and
learning in policy diffusion. American Politics Research, 32(5), 521–545.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries
(ERIC/ECTJ Annual Review paper). Educational Communication and
Technology, 29(2), 75–91.
Guldbrandsson, K., & Fossum, B. (2009). An exploration of the theoretical concepts
policy windows and policy entrepreneurs at the Swedish public health arena.
Health Promotion International, 24(4), 434–444.
Hagerstrand, T. (1953). Innovation diffusion as a spatial process. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
278
Hahn, A. (1987). Policy making models and their role in policy education. Increasing
understanding of public problems and policies Series, 222–235. St. Paul, MN:
Farm Foundation, Department of Applied Economics and University Libraries
University of Minnesota and the Agricultural and Applied Economics
Association. Retrieved from http://purl.umn.edu/17857
Hays, S. P., & Glick, H. R. (1997). The role of agenda setting in policy innovation: An
event history analysis of living-will laws. American Politics Research, 25(4), 497–
516.
Heclo, H. (1977). A government of strangers: Executive politics in Washington.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
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.
Hearn, J. C., & Holdsworth, J. M. (2004). Federal student aid: The shift from grants to
loans. In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher
education: Changing contexts and new rationales (pp. 40–59). Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins Press.
Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R. (Eds). (2004). Creative knowledge
environments: The influences on creativity in research and innovation.
Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Hughes, R. L., & Colarelli Beatty, K. (2003). Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in
your organizations enduring success. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
279
Hussain, K. M. (1974, November). Gaming models in higher education. Paper prepared
for the Institutional Management in Higher Education Seminar on Models and
Simulated Decision-making, Paris, France.
Ingle, W. 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.
Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (1994). Creative approaches to problem
solving. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Isaksen, S. G., Murdock, M. C., Firestien, R., & Treffinger, D. (1993). Understanding
and recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative problem solving: Three components
and six specific stages (Unpublished instructional handout).
Jaffe, A. (2000). The U.S. patent system in transition: Policy innovation and the
innovation process. Research Policy, 29, 531–557.
Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. London, United
Kingdom: Routledge/Falmer Press.
Johnsrud, L. K. (2008). Faculty work: Making our research matter—More. The Review of
Higher Education, 31(4), 489–504.
Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to
the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing.
Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 1–19.
Jones, B. D., Baumgartner, F. R., & True, J. L. (1998). Policy punctuations: U.S. budget
authority, 1947-95. Journal of Politics, 60(1), 1–33.
280
Kantrowitz, M. (2010, August 10). Total college debt now exceeds total credit card debt.
Retrieved from http://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/2589-total-collegedebt-now-exceeds-total-credit-card-debt
Kaufmann, G. (1993). The logical structure of creativity concepts: A conceptual
argument for creativity as a coherent discipline. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock,
R. L. Firestien, & D. L. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding and recognizing
creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 141–157). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Kelly, A. (2012, January 5). Don’t blame for-profit colleges for the higher-ed lobbying
epidemic. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/dont-blame-for-profitcolleges-for-the-higher-ed-lobbying-epidemic/250921/
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. London,
England: MacMillan.
Kinash, S. (2010). Paradigms, methodology and methods. Robina, Australia: Bond
University. Retrieved from http://bond.edu.au/prod_ext/groups/public/@pub-tlsgen/documents/genericwebdocument/bd3_012336.pdf
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in
qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 679–692.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). On to the next level: Continuing the conceptualization of the
bricolage. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(3), 323-350.
281
King, A. M. (1990). The geometry of racial politics: The role of policy entrepreneurs in
fostering triangulation among U.S. racial and ethnic groups, 1800–1964
(Doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown.
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:
Longman.
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622–629.
Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Komives, S, Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. (1998). Exploring leadership for college
students that want to make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Krugman, P. (1994, June 15). Paul Krugman on conflict between professors and pundits.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Levin, B. (2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
12(56). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/211
Light, P. C. (2008). The search for social entrepreneurship. Washington, DC. The
Brookings Institution.
282
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration
Review, 9(2), 79–88.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review,
39(6), 517–526.
Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The policy-making process (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation
between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity
generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402–410.
Lowi, T. J. (1964). Review of the book American business, public policy, case-studies,
and political theory, by R. A. Bauer, I. D. S. Pool, & L. A. Dexter. World Politics,
16(4), 677–715.
Mackenzie, C. (2004). Policy entrepreneurship in Australia: A conceptual review and
application. Australian Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 367–386.
Magyari-Beck, I. (1993). Creatology: A potential paradigm for an emerging discipline. In
S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. L. Treffinger (Eds.),
Understanding and recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 48–
82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in
small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241–270.
283
Martinez, M. (2008). Competencies and higher education policy analysts. Educational
Policy, 22(5), 623–639.
Maslin-Ostrowski, P., & Ackerman, R. H. (2006). Case story. In Fenwick, W. (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (pp. 106–107).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–
396.
McCann, C., & Laitinen, A. (2014, March). College blackout: How the higher education
lobby fought to keep students in the dark. Washington, DC: New America.
McClelland, D., Atkinson, J., Clark, R., & Lowell, E. (1953). The achievement motive.
New York, NY: Appleton–Century–Crofts.
McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Co.
McCown, T. L. (2004). Policy entrepreneurs and policy change: Examining the linkages
between TANF, domestic violence and the FVO (Doctoral dissertation). West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
McDowell Ward, H. (2010). Creating the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
Monument: Discourse, media, place-making, and policy entrepreneurs (Doctoral
dissertation). East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
McGregor, S. L. T., & Murnane, J. A. (2010). Paradigm, methodology and method:
Intellectual integrity in consumer scholarship. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 34, 419–427.
284
McLendon, M. K. (2003). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends,
and theories of the public policy process. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research, 18 (pp. 57–143). New York, NY: Springer.
McNichols, E., Hall, D., Cooper, D., Palacios, V. (2012). Pulling apart: A state-by-state
analysis of income trends. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities and Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.cbpp.org/files/11-15-12sfp.pdf
McPherson, M. S. (1978). The demand for higher education. In D. W. Brenaman, & C. E.
Finn (Eds.), Public policy ad private higher education (pp. 143–196). Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution.
McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (2007, September 7). Moral reasoning and highereducation policy. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Moral-Reasoning-and/17131/
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood:
A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand
Miller, T. L., Wesley, C. I., & Williams, D. E. (2012). Educating the minds of caring
hearts: Comparing the views of practitioners and educators on the importance of
social entrepreneurship competencies. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 11(3), 349–370.
285
Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American
Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770.
Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Mintrom, M. (2003). People skills for policy analysts. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Mintrom, M. (2013). Policy entrepreneurs and controversial science: Governing human
embryonic stem cell research. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 442–
457.
Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. The
Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.
Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and
policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434.
Montana University System. (2014). Montana’s two-year college initative:
College!NOW. Retrieved from http://mus.edu/2yr/CollegeNOW/
Morris, J. D., & Morris, L. A. (1976). A generalized computer program for editing
narrative text. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 8(4), 401–402.
Morrison, J. L. (1992). Environmental scanning. In M. A. Whitely, J. D. Porter, & R. H.
Fenske (Eds.), A primer for new institutional researchers (pp. 86–99).
Tallahassee, FL: The Association for Institutional Research.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling
psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260.
286
Mueller, J. S., Goncalo, J., & Kamdar, D. (2010). Recognizing creative leadership: Can
creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential?
[Electronic version]. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1342&context=
articles
Mullin, C. M. (2012, April). Awards luncheon comments. Council for the Study of
Community Colleges 54th Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A.
(2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems.
Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11–35.
Nagel, S. (2001a). Handbook of policy creativity: Volume I: Creativity at the cutting
edge. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Nagel, S. (2001b). Handbook of policy creativity: Volume II: Creativity causes and
effects. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Nash, J. F. (1950). Non-cooperative games (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ.
Newman, F., Couturier, L., & Curry, J. (2004). The future of higher education: Rhetoric,
reality, and the risks of the market. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Noller, R. B., & Isaksen, S. G. (1999). Creativity and Creative Problem Solving. In M.
Joyce, S. Isaksen, F. Davidson, G. Puccio, C. Copppage, & M. A. Maruska (Eds.),
An introduction to creativity (2nd ed.) (pp. 5–15). Acton, MA: Copley Custom
Publishing Group.
287
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., and Davies, H. T. O. (2008). Using evidence: How research can
inform public service. Bristol, England: The Policy Press.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2010). Innovative data collection
strategies in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 696–726.
Osborne, M. J. (2003). An introduction to game theory. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Overseas Development Institute. (2009, September). Helping researchers become policy
entrepreneurs (Briefing paper No. 53). London, England: Author.
Pasque, P. A. (2010). American higher education, leadership, and policy. New York,
NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Perkmann, M. (2003). Policy entrepreneurs, multilevel governance and policy networks
in the European polity: The case of the EUREGIO. Lancaster, England: Lancaster
University. Retrieved from
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/perkmannpolicy- entrepreneurs.pdf
288
Perkmann, M. (2007). Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance: A comparative
study of European cross-border regions. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 25(6), 861–879.
Perrewe, P., & Nelson, D. (2004). Gender and career success: The facilitative role of
political skill. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 366–378.
Pershin, G. (2006). Adoption of policies that permit community colleges to grant
bachelor degrees in Florida: Frame analysis (Doctoral dissertation). The Florida
State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Peters, B. G. (2010). American public policy: Promise and performance (8th ed.).
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Phelps, C., Heidl, E., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge
networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1,1151,166.
Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader: New tactics for a globalizing world. Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Publishing.
Pisapia, J., Jelenc, L., & Mick, A. (forthcoming 2015). The foundations of strategic
thinking: Effectual, strategic, and causal reasoning. In I. V. Raguz, N. Podrug, &
L. Jelenc (Eds.), Neostrategic management (Edition: Contributions to
Management Science). New York, NY: Springer.
Polsby, N. W. (1984). Political innovation in America: The politics of policy initiation.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
289
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1995). Qualitative research: Reaching the parts other methods
cannot reach: An introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services
research. BMJ, 1(311), 42–45.
Protopsaltis, S. (2008). Theories of the policy process and higher education reform in
Colorado: The shaping of the first state postsecondary education voucher system
(Doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Denver.
Puccio, G. J., Cabra, J. F., Fox, M. J., & Cahen, H. (2010). Creativity on demand:
Historical approaches and future trends. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering
Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(2), 153–159.
Puccio, G. J., Mance, M., & Murdock, M. C. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that
drive change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Radoff, J. (2011). Game player motivations. Retrieved from
http://radoff.com/blog/2011/05/19/game-player-motivations/
Renshon, S. A. (2014). Psychoanalytic theories. In R. A. W. Rhodes & P. ‘t Hart (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of political leadership (pp. 132–148). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Rhodes, M. (1956). The dynamics of creativity: An interpretation of the literature on
creativity with a proposed procedure for objective research (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–311.
Rickards, T. (1999). Creativity and the management of change. San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons.
290
Rinkus Thompson, C. (1994). The cabinet member as policy entrepreneur.
Administration and Society, 25(4), 395–409.
Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and
function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 1(2), 147–175.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed). New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogers, M. (2012). Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. The
Qualitative Report, 17(7), 1–17.
Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity. Waltham, MA:
Academic Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of
policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2-3), 129–168.
Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd Ed). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Sabatier, P. A. (2010). The need for better theories. In C. D. Lovell, T. E. Larson, D. R.
Dean, & D. L. Longanecker (Eds.), Public policy and higher education (2nd ed.)
(pp. 41–50). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1988). Special issue: Policy change and policyoriented learning: Exploring an advocacy coalition framework. Policy Sciences,
21, 123–278.
291
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand
Savage, R. L. (1978). Policy innovations as a trait of American states. The Journal of
Politics, 40(1), 212–224.
Say, J. B. (1964). Traité d'économie politique: Ou, simple exposition de la manière dont
se forment, se distribuent et se consomment les richesses [Treatise on political
economy: On the production, distribution and consumption of wealth]. New York,
NY: Kelley. (Original work published 1803)
Schiller, W. J. (1995). Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shape
legislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 186–203.
Schneider, M., & Teske, P. (1992). Toward a theory of the political entrepreneur.
American Political Science Review 86(3), 737–747.
Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Mintrom, M. (1995). Public entrepreneurs: Agents for
change in American government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schneider, V. (1992). The structure of policy networks: A comparison of the Chemicals
Control and Telecommunications Policy Domains in Germany. European Journal
of Political Research, 21(1-2), 109–129.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. London, England:
Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
292
Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today, 9(6),
83–88.
Shockley, G. E., & Frank, P. M. (2009, June). Governance institutions and social
entrepreneurship in developing countries. Paper prepared for the EMES
International Conference on Social Enterprise, Trento, Italy.
Shoemaker, P. J. H., Krupp, S., & Howland, S. (2013). Strategic leadership: The essential
skills. Harvard Business Review Online, January-February Issue. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2013/01/strategic-leadership-the-esssential-skills
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sistovaris, M. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs in US-Cuba Policy, 1989–2006: Testing the
multiple streams framework (Doctoral thesis). Carleton University, Ottawa,
Canada.
Slaughter, S. (1990). Higher learning and high technology: Dynamics of higher
education policy formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2011). Markets in higher education: Trends in academic
capitalism. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American
higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic
challenges (3rd ed.) (pp. 433–464). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Smith, J. (1991). The idea brokers: Think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. W. (2009). The public policy theory primer. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
293
Smith, S. (2008). An empirical examination of the president as a policy entrepreneur:
Health Care (1959–2004) (Honors thesis). Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, FL.
Spears, L. C. (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of
servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY:
John Wiley.
St. John, E. P., Daun-Barnett, N., & Moronski-Chapman, K. M. (2013). Public policy and
higher education: Reframing strategies for preparation, access, and college
success. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2003). The Leadership Quarterly, 14(45), 455–473.
Stodgill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35–71.
Stodgill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York, NY: Free Press.
The College Board. (2014). Trends in student aid 2013. New York, NY: Author.
Retrieved from http://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/student-aid-2013full-report.pdf
The Pew Charitable Trusts. (January, 2013). How much protection does a college degree
afford? The impact of the recession on recent college graduates. Washington,
DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts Economic Mobility Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2013/Pew_college_grads_re
cession _report.pdf
294
The World Bank Group. (2014). GNI per capita, PPP (current international $).
Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD
Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Thompson, J., & Smeeding, T. (2014, January). Income inequality. Palo Alto, CA:
National Report Card, The Stamford Center on Poverty and Inequality. Retrieved
from http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_incomeinequality.pdf
Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. The Journal of Political
Economy, 64(5), 416–424.
Tozzi, J., & Levinson, B. (2014). Accomplishment beyond dollars. The Environmental
Forum, 31(1), 30–33.
Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. C., & Dorval, K. B. (1999). Creative problem solving: An
overview. In M. Joyce, S. Isaksen, F. Davidson, G. Puccio, C. Copppage, & M. A.
Maruska (Eds.), An introduction to creativity (2nd ed.) (pp. 114–122). Acton,
MA: Copley Custom Publishing Group.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Research methods knowledge base (2nd ed). [Online
textbook]. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/
Turner Johnson, A., Hirt, J. B., & Hoba, P. (2011). Higher education, policy networks,
and policy entrepreneurship in Africa: The case of the Association of African
Universities. Higher Education Policy, 24, 85–102.
295
University of Southern California. (2015). Limitations of the study. LibGuides:
Organizing your social sciences research paper. Retrieved from
http://libguides.usc.edu/content.php?pid=83009&sid=616083
Usher, R., Bryant, I., & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult education and the postmodern
challenge: Learning beyond the limits. London, England: Routledge.
Valentine, D. (2005). Communicating research to policy-makers (Report 22-2005).
Retrieved from
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/2705/Communicati
ngResearchPolicyMakers.pdf?sequence=1
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Management, 37(4), 1,228–1,261.
Vehar, J. (2008). Creativity and innovation: A call for rigor in language. In G. P. Puccio,
et al. (Eds.), Creativity and innovation management: An international conference.
Proceedings, Book 2 (pp. 259–277). Buffalo, NY: International Center for Studies
in Creativity.
Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American
Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.
Walker, J. L. (1974). Performance gaps, policy research, and political entrepreneurs:
Toward a theory of agenda setting. Policy Studies Journal, 3(1), 112–116.
Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration
Review, 39(5), 426–431.
Weissert, C. S. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs, policy opportunists, and legislative
effectiveness. American Politics Research, 19(2), 262–274.
296
Welch, S., & Thompson, K. (1980). The impact of federal incentives on state policy
innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 24(4), 715–729.
Wildavsky, B., Kelly, A. P., & Carey, K. (Eds.) (2011). Reinventing higher education:
The promise of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Woodbury, R. L. (2000). The McCormack Institute. In L. H. Leverty & D. R. Colburn
(Eds.), Understanding the role of public policy centers and institutes in fostering
university-government partnerships, New Directions for Higher Education, 112
(pp. 63–74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J. Antonakis,
A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 101–124).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Zemsky, R. (2009). Making reform work: The case for transforming American higher
education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Zhu, Y. (2012). Policy entrepreneur, civic engagement and local policy innovation in
China: Housing monetarisation reform in Guizhou Province. The Australian
Journal of Public Administration, 71(2), 191–200.
Zhu, Y. (2013). Policy entrepreneurship, institutional constraints, and local policy
innovation in China. The China Review, 13(2), 97–122.
297
Zumeta, W., Brenaman, D. W., Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (2012). Financing
American higher education in the era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
298

a descriptive portrait of higher education leaders

Transcription

Similar documents

a social entrepreneur - Universiti Tenaga Nasional

cardell place calgary

RETIRING to Reboot

opening up science with vivo

Magazine Spread | 2016 PowerWomen

Read the Full Article

2012/2013 Annual Review

Filling the Gap? Female Entrepreneurs in

a Brochure - The Entrepreneur Experience

Untitled