Educational policy debates are no longer occurring exclusively in academic or governmental settings. Intermediary actors are promoting research using a variety of traditional and non-traditional media to advance and oppose policy agendas. Given the current policy arena, it is useful to re-examine the research underlying current reforms, and to determine whether there is an “echo-chamber” effect, where a small, or unrepresentative, sample of studies is repeatedly cited to create momentum around a policy proposal. In exploring the echo-chamber hypothesis, we focus on two distinct methodologies. Using bibliometric methods and examining social media activity by intermediary organizations, our preliminary evidence suggests the presence of an echo-chamber effect in policy debates.
AbellaR. (2006). An analysis of the academic performance of voucher students in the opportunity scholarship program. Education and Urban Society, 38, 406-418.
2.
AllaisS. (2012). “Economics imperialism,” education policy and educational theory. Journal of Education Policy, 27, 253-274. doi:10.1080/02680939.2011.602428
3.
AngristJ. D.ImbensG. W.RubinD. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444-455.
4.
BallS. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34, 119-130.
5.
BarnardJ.FrangakisC.HillJ.RubinD. (2003). Principal stratification approach to broken randomized experiments: A case study of school choice vouchers in New York City. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 98, 299-323.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (1992). Qualitative research in education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
8.
CardD.DooleyM.PayneA. (2010). School competition and efficiency with publicly funded Catholic schools. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 150-176.
9.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
10.
ColemanJ. S.HofferT.KilgoreS. (1982). High school achievement: Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York, NY: Basic Books.
11.
CowenJ. M. (2008). School choice as a latent variable: Estimating the “complier average causal effect” of vouchers in Charlotte. Policy Studies Journal, 36, 301-315.
12.
CraneD. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from http://www.getcited.org/pub/101807044
13.
DaviesH.NutleyS. (2008). Learning more about how research-based knowledge gets used: Guidance in the development of new empirical research. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation.
14.
DeBrayE.ScottJ.LubienskiC.JabbarH.GoldieD.GoelP.LinickM. (2013). Intermediary organizations in national education policy coalitions: Their role in disseminating research on reforms across levels of government. Paper Presentation presented at 2013 Association of Education Finance and Policy, New Orleans, LA.
15.
GoldbergerA. S.CainG. G. (1982). The causal analysis of cognitive outcomes in the Coleman, Hoffer and Kilgore report. Sociology of Education, 55(2), 103-122.
16.
GreeneJ. P.PetersonP. E.DuJ. (1998). School choice in Milwaukee: A randomized experiment. In PetersonP. E.HasselB. C. (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 335-356). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
HenigJ. (2009). Politicization of evidence: Lessons for an informed democracy. Educational Policy, 23, 137-160.
19.
HowellG.WolfP. J.CampbellD. E.PetersonP. E. (2002). School vouchers and academic performance: Results from three randomized field trials. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 191-217.
20.
KruegerA. B.ZhuP. (2004a). Another look at the New York City voucher experiment. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 658-698.
21.
KruegerA. B.ZhuP. (2004b). Inefficiency, subsample selection, and non-robustness: A response to Paul E. Peterson and William G. Howell. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 718-728.
LubienskiC.GulosinoC.WeitzelP. (2009). School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education, 115, 601-647.
24.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy (ID Number: 16487). Teachers College Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org
25.
LubienskiC.WeitzelP. (2008). Effects of vouchers and private schools in improving academic achievement: A critique of advocacy research. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2008, 447-486.
26.
LubienskiC.WeitzelP.LubienskiS. (2009). Is there a “consensus” on school choice and achievement? Advocacy research and the emerging political economy of knowledge production. Educational Policy, 23, 161-193. doi:10.1177/0895904808328532
27.
NealD. (1997). Measuring Catholic school performance. Public Interest, 127, 81-87.
28.
NelsonS.LefflerJ.HansenB. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence (Education Northwest). Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Library. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/resource/694
29.
RouseC. E. (1998). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee parental choice program. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 553-602.
30.
RouseC. E.BarrowL. (2008). School vouchers and student achievement: Recent evidence, remaining questions (Working Paper, No. 2008-08). Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/70492
31.
RouseC. E.BarrowL. (2009). School vouchers and student achievement: Recent evidence, remaining questions. Annual Review of Economics, 1(1), 17-42.
32.
RubinD. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688-701.
33.
SabatierP. (1993). Policy change over a decade or more. In SabatierP.Jenkins-SmithH. (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 13-39). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). U.S. Department of education awards $3.5 Million in charter school leadership grants to support projects of national significance in the charter school sector [Press release]. Washington, DC: Author.
WatkinsS. (2006, September1). Are public or private schools doing better? How the NCES study is being misinterpreted (Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1968, pp. 1-4). Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
38.
WeissC. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426-431.
39.
WhiteH. (2011). Scientific and scholarly networks. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 271-285). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book232753?prodId=Book232753
40.
WitteF. J. (1998). The Milwaukee voucher experiment. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 229-252.
41.
WolfP. J. (2008). School voucher programs: What the research says about parental school choice. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2008, 415-446.
42.
WolfP.GutmannB.PumaM.KisidaB.Rizzo EissaN.CarrM. (2010). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Educational Sciences.
