Intermediary organizations play an increasingly important role in public policy related to higher education, particularly related to the completion agenda. This study addresses strategies employed by intermediary organizations to communicate to policymakers regarding college completion. Using rhetorical analysis, we examine 72 documents to deconstruct their arguments. Findings show that intermediaries employ the rhetorical elements of ethos, pathos, delivery, and idiom to present information and advocate preferred policy solutions. Importantly, organizations communicate messages differently based on their orientation toward the researcher or policymaker communities. Intermediary organizations aligned more closely with researchers rely more on empirical evidence and neutral tones, whereas organizations aligned more closely with policymakers utilize more idiomatic language, visually engaging document design, and nonempirical sources of evidence. Rhetorical analysis can enable researchers, intermediaries, and policymakers all to work more clearly and carefully in the higher education policy arena and, in so doing, strengthen the bridge between the two communities.
AbelsonD. E. (2007). Any ideas? Think tanks and policy analysis in Canada. In HowlettM.DobuzinskisL.LaycockD. (Eds.), Policy analysis in Canada: The state of the art (pp. 298–310). University of Toronto Press.
BauerM. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In BauerM. W.GaskellG. (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook (pp. 131–151). SAGE.
4.
BilligM.MacMillanK. (2005). Metaphor, idiom and ideology: The search for “no smoking guns” across time. Discourse & Society, 16(4), 459–480.
5.
BirnbaumR. (2000). Policy scholars are from Venus; Policy makers are from Mars. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 119–132.
6.
CairneyP.KwiatkowskiR. (2017). How to communicate effectively with policymakers: Combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), Article 37. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8
7.
CairneyP.OliverK. (2017). Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy?Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x
8.
CairneyP.OliverK.WellsteadA. (2016). To bridge the divide between evidence and policy: Reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 399–402.
9.
Charteris-BlackJ. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
CollinsM. L. (2014). Texas student success council: Finding common ground to increase community college completion. Jobs for the Future.
11.
Complete College America. (2012). Guided pathways to success: Boosting college completion.
12.
CorbettE. P. J.ConnorsR. J. (1999). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
13.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. S.MoolenaarN. M.CheJ. (2014). The critical role of brokers in the access and use of evidence at the school and district level. In FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 13–31). Springer.
14.
DeBrayE.ScottJ.LubienskiC.JabbarH. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175–206.
15.
DobbinsM.RobesonP.CiliskaD.HannaS.CameronR.O’MaraL.DeCorbyK.MercerS. (2009). A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge transition strategies. Implementation Science, 4, Article 23. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/23
16.
DunnW. N. (1980). The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 515–536.
FrostH.RosemaryG.HawS.JacksonC. A.JepsonR.MooneyJ. D.FrankJ. (2012). Experiences of knowledge brokering for evidence-informed public health policy and practice: Three years of the Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy. Evidence & Policy, 8(3), 347–359.
21.
GándaraD.RippnerJ. A.NessE. C. (2017). Exploring the “how” in policy diffusion: National intermediary organizations’ roles in facilitating the spread of performance-based funding policies in the states. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 701–725.
22.
HallC. E. (2011). “Advocacy philanthropy” and the public policy agenda: The role of modern foundations in American Higher Education [Doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University].
23.
HallC. E.ThomasS. L. (2012, April). “Advocacy philanthropy” and the public policy agenda: The role of modern foundations in American higher education [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
24.
HalloranS. M.BradfordA. N. (1984). Figures of speech in the rhetoric of science and technology. In ConnorsR. J.EdeL. S.LunsfordA. A. (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse (pp. 179–192). Southern Illinois University Press.
HearnJ. C. (1997). Research on higher education in a mass and diversified system: The case of the United States. In SadlakJ.AltbachP. G. (Eds.), Higher education research at the turn of the century: Structures, issues, and trends (pp. 271–319). Garland Publishing.
27.
HerrickJ. A. (2005). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
28.
HessF. M.HenigJ. R. (2015). The new education philanthropy: Politics, policy, and reform (Educational innovations series). Harvard Education Press.
29.
HodkinsonP. (2004). Research as a form of work: Expertise, community and methodological objectivity. British Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 9–26.
30.
HonigM. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.
31.
HornA. S.LeeG. (2017). Evaluating the accuracy of productivity indicators in performance funding models. Educational Policy, 33(5), 702–733.
32.
JohnsonN. (1984). Ethos and the aims of rhetoric. In ConnorsR. J.EdeL. S.LunsfordA. A. (Eds.), Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse (pp. 98–114). Southern Illinois University Press.
33.
JonesS.SugarT.BaumgardnerM.RaymondD.MooreW.DavidsonR.DenhamK. (2012). Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere. Complete College America.
34.
JonesT.JonesS.ElliottK.C.Russell OwensL.AssaloneA.E.GándaraD. (2017). Outcomes based funding and race in higher education. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
35.
KellerG. (1985). Trees without fruit: The problem with research about higher education. Change, 17(1), 7–10.
36.
KezarA. (2000). Understanding the research-to-practice gap: A national study of researchers’ and practitioners’ perspectives. In KezarA.EckelP. (Eds.), New directions for higher education: Moving beyond the gap between research and practice in higher education (Vol. 110, pp. 9–19). Jossey-Bass.
37.
LeachJ. (2000). Rhetorical analysis. In BauerM. W.GaskellG. (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook (pp. 207–226). SAGE.
38.
LesterJ. N.LochmillerC. R.GabrielR. (2016). Locating and applying critical discourse analysis within education policy: An introduction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(102). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2768.
39.
LiA. Y. (2018). Performance funding policy impacts on STEM degree attainment. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818755455
40.
LomasJ. (2007). The in-between world of knowledge brokering. British Medical Journal, 334, 129–132.
41.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record. http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16487
42.
LubienskiC.ScottJ.DeBrayE. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144.
43.
Lumina. (2009). A stronger nation through higher education: How and why Americans must meet a “big goal” for college attainment.
44.
Lumina. (2016). Align K-12 and postsecondary placement exams.
45.
MichelauD. K.LaneP. (2010). Bringing adults back to college: Designing and implementing a statewide concierge model. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
46.
MillerG. N.MorphewC. C. (2017). Merchants of optimism: Agenda-setting organizations and the framing of performance-based funding for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 754–784.
47.
MooneyC. Z. (1991). Information sources in state legislative decision making. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16, 445–455.
48.
National Conference on State Legislatures. (2016). No time to lose.
49.
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. XXV, pp. 1–49). Springer.
50.
NessE. C.HearnJ. C.RubinP. G. (2018). The SHEEO and intermediary organizations. In TandbergD. A.SponslerB. A.HannaR. W.GuilbeauJ. P. (Eds.), The state higher education executive officer and the public good: Developing new leadership for improved policy, practice, and research (pp.163-192). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
PoutréA.RorisonJ.VoightM. (2017). Limited means, limited options college remains unaffordable for many Americans. Institute for Higher Education Policy.
55.
ReckhowS.SnyderJ. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195.
56.
ReynaR. (2010, June). Complete to compete: Common college completion metrics. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512713.pdf.
57.
RichA. (2005). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge University Press.
58.
RubinP.G.HearnJ.C. (2018). The policy filtering process: Understanding distinctive state responses to the national college completion agenda in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(60). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3447.
59.
RussellA. (2011). A guide to major U.S. College Completion Initiatives. American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
60.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136.
61.
SnowC. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press.
62.
SnowC. P. (1963). The two cultures: And a second look. Cambridge University Press.
TandbergD. A.HillmanN. W. (2014). State higher education performance funding: Data, outcomes, and policy implications. Journal of Education Finance, 39(3), 222–243.
65.
UmbrichtM. R.FernandezF.OrtagusJ. C. (2017). An examination of the (un)intended consequences of performance funding in higher education. Educational Policy, 31(5), 643–673.
66.
WaughA. (2016). Meta-majors: An essential first step on the path to college completion. Jobs for the Future.
67.
WebberD. J. (1987). Legislators use of policy information. American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 612–631.
68.
WeinerS. S. (1986). Shipyards in the desert. The Review of Higher Education, 10(2), 159–164.
69.
WintonS. (2013). Rhetorical analysis in critical policy research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.666288
70.
WongK. K. (2008). Considering the politics in the research and policymaking nexus. In HessF. M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 219–237). Harvard Education Press.
