This article explores recent initiatives by the states to reform governance of public higher education. It synthesizes theoretical and empirical literature to suggest that richer understanding might result from “qualitative heuristic” treatment of multiple case studies. It proposes that data be analyzed to weigh the main and residual effects of political and instrumental goals of key actors in reform. Five exploratory case studies of state governance reform are summarized. Political factors were found to outweigh instrumental factors in most of the cases. The authors conclude with a discussion of fluidity in the political environment, noting that solutions seem to be continuously moving targets.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Berdahl, R. O. (1971). Statewide coordination of higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
3.
Berdahl, R. O., & Schmidtlein, F. A. (1996). Restructuring and its aftermath: Maryland in restructuring higher education. In T. J. MacTaggart (Ed.), Restructuring higher education: What works and what doesn’t in reorganizing governing systems (pp. 157-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Birkland, T. A. (2001). Introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
5.
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of agenda building (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
Firestone, W. (1989). Educational policy as an ecology of games. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 18-24.
8.
Frost, S. H., Hearn, J. C., & Marine, G. M. (1997). State policy and the public research university: A case study of manifest and latent tensions. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 363-397.
9.
Graham, J. M. (2000). Interaction effects: Their nature and some post hoc exploration strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from http://ericae.net/ft/tamu/interaction.pdf
10.
Gray, V., & Lowery, D. (2000). Where do policy ideas come from? A study of Minnesota legislators and staffers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 573-597.
11.
Greenberg, G., Miller, J. A., Mohr, L. B., & Vladeck, B. C. (1977). Developing public policy theory: Perspectives from empirical research. American Political Science Review, 71, 1532-1544.
12.
Greer, D. (1998). Defining the scope and limits of autonomy: New Jersey. In T. J. MacTaggart (Ed.), Seeking excellence through independence (pp. 84-106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
House Joint Resolution 12. (1998). Maryland charter for higher education governance, coordination, and funding of the university system of Maryland. Retrieved from http://mlis.state.md.us/1998rs/billfile/hj0012.htm
14.
Hovey, H. A. (1999). State spending for higher education in the next decade: The battle to sustain current support. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
15.
Hume, D. (1975.) Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon.
16.
Kingdon, J. W. (1987). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
19.
MacTaggart, T. J. (1996). The human side of restructuring. In T. J. MacTaggart (Ed.), Restructuring higher education: What works and what doesn’t in reorganizing governing systems (pp. 132-156). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Marcus, L. R. (1997). Restructuring state higher education governance patterns. Review of Higher Education, 20, 399-418.
21.
Marshall, C., Mitchell, B., & Wirt, F. (1985). Influence, power and policy making. Peabody Journal of Education, 62(4), 61-89.
22.
Martini, P. J. (2000). The Larsen Commission and the development of university systems: Maryland’s 21st century road map for higher education and governance. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
23.
McLendon, M. K. (2000). Setting the agenda for state decentralization of higher education: Analyzing the explanatory power of alternative agenda models. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
24.
McLendon, M. K. (in press). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 18). New York: Agathon.
25.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
26.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Novak, R. (1989). The New Jersey state colleges success in achieving operational autonomy: Accountability and the ability to govern fully. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
28.
Novak, R., & Leslie, D. W. (2000). A not so distant mirror: Great Depression writings on the governance and finance of public higher education. History of Higher Education Annual, 20, 59-78.
29.
Recommendations to the Florida Legislature. (2001). Tallahassee, FL: Education Governance Reorganization Transition Task Force.
30.
A Report of the Task Force to Study the Governance, Coordination, and Funding of the University System of Maryland. (1999). Annapolis, MD: Department of Legislative Services.
31.
Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition framework. Boulder, CO: Westview.
32.
Smith, R. M. (2002). Putting the substance back in political science. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(30), B10-B11.
33.
Trombley, W. (2001). Florida’s new K-20 Model. National Crosstalk, 9(2), 1, 14-16.
34.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 4-19.
35.
Yudof, M. (2002, January 11). Is the public research university dead? Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B24
36.
Zumeta, W. (1996). Meeting the demand for higher education without breaking the bank: A framework for the design of state higher education policies for an era of increasing demand. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 367-425.
37.
Zusman, A. (1986). Legislature and university conflict: The case of California. Review of Higher Education, 9, 397-418.
