This study takes an inventory of a particular type of intermediary organization ascendant within the state-level higher education policy: ideological think tanks. Our inventory identifies 99 think tanks: 59 affiliated with the conservative State Policy Network and 40 with the Progressive States Network. The analysis shows that state-level conservative think tanks (CTTs) are more tightly connected to national networks than are progressive think tanks (PTTs). By narrow margins, CTTs are also better funded and have more robust higher education policy activity than PTTs. The two most common policy issues—state funding and costs and affordability—represent higher education issues of equal salience to conservative and progressive organizations but from contrasting ideological perspectives. This inventory of the landscape of ideological think tanks’ activity and their supply of information has implications for future research that might examine policymakers’ demand for and utilization of ideological think tank information and services.
AbelsonD. E. (2009). Do think tanks matter? Assessing the impact of public policy institutes (2nd ed.). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
GustonD. H. (2000). Between politics and science: Credibility on the line. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
HartleyM.MorphewC. C. (2008). What’s being sold and to what end? A content analysis of college viewbooks. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 671-691.
12.
HenigJ. (2008). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates: The case of charter schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
13.
HessF. M. (Ed.). (2008). When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
14.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65-87.
15.
HonigM. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114, 627-664.
16.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
LeesonP. T.RyanM. E.WilliamsonC. R. (2012). Think tanks. Journal of Comparative Economics, 40, 62-77.
19.
MetcalfeA. S. (2008). Theorizing research policy: A framework for higher education. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education, Handbook of theory and research (pp. 241-276). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
20.
MorphewC. C.HartleyM. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across institutional type. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 456-471.
21.
MurrayN. (2011). 10 questions state legislators should ask about higher education. Washington, DC: American Legislative Exchange Council.
22.
NessE. C. (2010). The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 1-49). New York, NY: Springer.
23.
NutleyS. M.WalterI.DaviesH. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
24.
PhillipsR. (2012, February6). Higher education funding: Does more mean better?Olympia, WA: Freedom Foundation.
25.
RichA. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ShawJ. S. (2009). An education bubble? Is higher education on the same self-destructive path as housing was a few years ago?The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2206
SlaughterS.LeslieL. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
SnowC. P. (1961). Science and government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
