Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A growing body of research investigates how intermediary organizations (IOs) and their networks navigate, promote, and produce evidence on social media. To date, scholars have underexplored blogs, an important milieu in which IOs produce and disseminate information. In this analysis, we broaden the emerging scholarship on evidence brokering by examining how IOs and individual and independent bloggers broker knowledge via education policy blogs on charter schools and related education policy. Although blogging can potentially enhance knowledge production and dissemination, our findings demonstrate that bloggers often promote research evidence of uneven quality and scientific rigor.

Keywords

evidence use intermediary organizations charter schools

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andre-Bechely

(2013). Could it be otherwise? Parents and the inequalities of public school choice. Routledge.

Ball

S. J.

Junemann

(2012). Networks, new governance, and education. University of Chicago Press.

Banchero

(2013). Inside the nation’s biggest experiment in school choice. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 19, 2015, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323398204578489333180027550

Berkshire

(2014). Lab rats. [Blog post]. Edushyster. http://edushyster.com/?p=5006

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching. Author. http://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/met-framing-paper.pdf

Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO). (2013). National charter school study. Author. http://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NCSS%202013%20Final%20Draft.pdf

DeBray

Scott

Lubienski

Jabbar

(2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813514132

DeBray-Pelot

Lubienski

Scott

(2007). The institutional landscape of interest group politics and school choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2–3), 204–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701312947

DiMartino

Jessen

S. B.

(2018). Selling school: The marketing of public education. Teachers College Press.

10.

Dixson

A. D.

Buras

K. L.

Jeffers

E. K.

(2015). The color of reform: Race, education reform, and charter schools in Post-Katrina New Orleans. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414557826

11.

Fleischman

Scott

Sargrad

(2016). Better evidence, better choices, better schools: State supports for evidence-based school improvement and The Every Student Succeeds Act. Center for American Progress. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED579214.pdf

12.

Feuer

Towne

Shavelson

(2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x031008004

13.

Finnigan

Daly

(Eds.) (2014). Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 69–89). Springer.

14.

Firestone

W. A.

(2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x14521864

15.

Goldie

Linick

Jabbar

Lubienski

(2014). Using bibliometric and social media analyses to explore the ‘echo chamber’ hypothesis.” Educational Policy, 28(2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515330

16.

Goodman

J. F.

(2013). Charter management organizations and the regulated environment: Is it worth the price? Educational Researcher, 42(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12470856

17.

Goodman

J. F.

Uzun

E. K.

(2013). The quest for compliance in schools: Unforeseen consequences. Ethics and Education, 8(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2013.793958

18.

Green

Baker

Oluwole

(2014). Having it both ways: How charter schools try to obtain funding of public schools and the autonomy of private schools. Emory Law Journal, 63(2), 303–337. http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-63/issue-2/articles/charter-schools-public-funding.html

19.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Greene

J. C.

Caracelli

V. J.

Graham

W. F.

(1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163620

21.

Grissmer

D. W.

(2000). The continuing use and misuse of SAT scores. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.6.1.223

22.

Haas

(2007). False equivalency: Think tank references on education in the news media. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 63–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560709336537

23.

Haskins

Margolis

(2014). Obama’s promise: Using evidence to fight the nation’s social problems. In Finnigan

K. S.

Daly

A. S.

(Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 133–162). Springer.

24.

Henig

J. R.

(2009). Politicization of evidence: Lessons for an informed democracy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328525

25.

Henig

J. R.

(2013). The end of exceptionalism in American education: The changing politics of school reform. Harvard Education Press.

26.

James

T. E.

Jorgensen

P. D.

(2009). Policy knowledge, policy formulation, and change: Revisiting a foundational question. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00300.x

27.

Kluger

(1976). Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s struggle for equality. Alfred A. Knopf.

28.

La Londe

P. G.

Brewer

T. J.

Lubienski

. (2015). Teach For America and Teach For All: Creating an intermediary organization network for global education reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(47). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1829

29.

Lavis

Ross

McLeod

Gildiner

(2003). Measuring the impact of health research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8(3), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581903322029520

30.

Lavy

(2007). Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. Future Of Children, 17(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2007.0007

31.

Lubienski

Brewer

T. J.

La Londe

P. G.

(2016). Orchestrating policy ideas: Philanthropies and think tanks in US education policy advocacy networks. Australian Education Researcher, 43(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0187-y

32.

Lubienski

Scott

DeBray

(2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record, 22(1), 1–3. http://www.tcrecord.org

33.

Lubienski

Scott

DeBray

(2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and use in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28(2): 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515329

34.

Lubienski

Weitzel

(2010). The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications. Harvard Education Press.

35.

Lubienski

Weitzel

Lubienski

S. T.

(2009). Is there a ‘consensus’ on school choice and achievement? Advocacy research and the emerging political economy of knowledge production. Educational Policy, 23(1), 161–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328532

36.

Malin

J. R.

Lubienski

(2015). Educational expertise, advocacy, and media influence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(6), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1706

37.

Marsh

J. A.

Springer

M. G.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Yuan

Epstein

(2012). A big apple for educators: New York City’s experiment with school wide performance bonuses: Final evaluation report. RAND Corporation. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1114.pdf

38.

Moe

(2008). Beyond the free market: The structure of school choice. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2008(2), 557–592. http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2406&context=lawreview

39.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Teddlie

(2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). SAGE.

40.

Pelto

(2015). The education bloggers network. [Blog post]. http://edubloggers.org/2015/01/06/the-education-bloggers-network/

41.

Rich

(2001). US think tanks and the intersection of ideology, advocacy, and influence. NIRA Review, 8(1), 54–59.

42.

Rogers

Lubienski

Scott

Welner

(2015). Examining the parent trigger as a strategy for school reform and parental engagement. Teachers College Record, 117: 060305.

43.

Sabatier

Jenkins-Smith

(1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Sabatier

(Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 117–166). Westview.

44.

Sawchuk

(2011). Bill Gates talks MET, teacher effectiveness. Education Week. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/01/gates_talks_met_study_teacher.html

45.

Scott

DeBray

Lubienski

Lalonde

Castillo

Owens

(2017). Urban regimes, intermediary organization networks, and research use: Patterns across three school districts. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1264800

46.

Scott

Holme

(2016). The political economy of market-based educational policies: Race and reform in urban school districts, 1915–2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 250–297. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x16681001

47.

Scott

Jabbar

(2013). Money and measures: The role of foundations in knowledge production. In Anagnostopoulos

Rutledge

S. A.

Jacobsen

(Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education (pp. 75–92). Harvard Education Press.

48.

Scott

Jabbar

(2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327

49.

Scott

Jabbar

La Londe

P. G.

DeBray

Lubienski

(2015). Evidence use and advocacy coalitions: Intermediary organizations and philanthropies in Denver, Colorado. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(124), 1–23. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/2079

50.

Smith

W. A.

Rowland

(2014). Parent trigger laws and the promise of parental voice. Journal of Choice: International Research and Reform, 8(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2014.875415

51.

Sojourner

A. A.

Mykerezi

E. M.

West

K. K.

(2014). Teacher pay reform and productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 945–981. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhr.2014.0029

52.

Southerland

S. A.

Gadsden

V. L.

Herringdon

C. D.

(2014). Editors’ introduction: What should count as quality education research? Educational Researcher, 43(1), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x13519962

53.

Spradley

J. P.

(1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehard, and Winston.

54.

Supovitz

Daly

A. J.

Del Fresno

(2018). The Common Core debate on Twitter and the rise of the activist public. Journal of Educational Change, 19(4), 419–440.

55.

Wang

Filkis

D. J.

(2019). Common Core State Standards on Twitter: Public sentiment and opinion leaders. Educational Policy, 33(4), 650–683.

56.

Weber

(2014a). HoLa haters have a hard haul hatin’ on Hoboken High. Jersey Jazzman. [Blog post]. http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2014/03/hola-hailers-have-hard-haul-hatin-on.html

57.

Weber

(2014b). How to destroy the teaching corps: Use charter schools. Jersey Jazzman. [Blog post]. http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-to-destroy-teaching-corps-use.html

58.

Weber

(2014c). Correcting the education punditry of @jonathanalter. Jersey Jazzman. [Blog post]. http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2014/08/correcting-education-punditry-of.html

59.

Weisberg

Sexton

Mulhern

Keeling

(2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project. http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TheWidgetEffect_2nd_ed.pdf

60.

Weiss

C. H.

(1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916

61.

Welner

K. G.

(2013). The dirty dozen: How charter schools influence student enrollment. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=17104

E-Advocacy in the Information Market: How Social Media Platforms Distribute Evidence on Charter Schools

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References