Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Public policymaking processes in the United States have often been characterized as veiled and lacking transparency. This article explores how critical qualitative inquiry can be used to examine the public policymaking process in ways that help demystify the process and open it up for interrogation and critique for greater democratic engagement. Critical questions are raised about which parts of the public policymaking process are hidden and underexplored and how researchers interested in advancing knowledge, justice, and empowerment for communities of color can use critical qualitative inquiry to “unveil” components of the process for greater advocacy and civic engagement.

Keywords

critical qualitative inquiry public policy methodologies

Introduction: Public Policy and Critical Research

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, racial uprisings and protests against police brutality, corporate greed, worker exploitation, school shootings, and the landmark Supreme Court decision striking down Roe v Wade, the public’s cynicism about policymakers’ ability to represent their interests is at an all-time high (Mondon, 2022). As a result, many within the United States have grown disengaged from the political system that produces public policy (Bergbower & Allen, 2021; Mihailidis & Foster, 2021; van Holm, 2019). Exacerbating the public’s cynicism and disengagement, the U.S. public policymaking process has often been characterized as veiled, even by public policymaking scholars (Kinney, 1999; Nadel, 1975; Thornton, 2000). This perception only serves to bolster special interests’ stranglehold on the public policymaking process, which continues to benefit the most privileged (Malin & Lubienski, 2022; Niebler, 2022).

Furthermore, there are currently critical gaps in our understandings that affect public policy connections, information, and influence (Grumbach, 2018). There is the often cited gap between researchers and policymakers, particularly researchers from marginalized communities, which weakens informed policymaking (Gandara & Kim, 2022; VanLandingham & Silloway, 2016). One of the cited challenges contributing to this gap is the public policymaking process, which has its own specialized system replete with established protocols, traditions, and rules of etiquette with implicit and explicit rules that govern how to engage (Azari & Smith, 2012; Biggs & Helms, 2014). Some of these rules of engagement are known by the public, but many of these rules may not be known or understood because they are not taught nor are they shared with those outside of the public policy arena, including researchers who seek to inform and influence it (Binder & Smith, 2001; Gandara & Kim, 2022). Yet, under informed conditions, Perna (2019) found that academic researchers can make a powerful contribution to the policymaking process, and many desire to be more engaged and impactful in policy arenas (Oliver & Cairney, 2019).

Statement of Purpose

While political scientists and public policy scholars have long wrestled with the complexity and hidden nature of public policymaking, scholars and practitioners outside of these fields are often left confused and discouraged about their inability to understand, engage, and advocate within different types of policy arenas that have different actors as well as implicit and explicit rules of engagement (Cairney & Oliver, 2020). The goal of this article is to highlight how critical qualitative inquiry (CQI) can demystify the public policymaking process so that scholars, practitioners, and advocates can participate in more meaningful and impactful ways. A list of questions is offered for exploring hidden and underexplored aspects of public policymaking and recommendations for critical qualitative approaches are provided that can glean new insight and awareness for greater democratic engagement.

There are many definitions of public policy, but for the purposes of this article, I use Anderson’s (2014) definition of public policy as “a relatively stable, purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern” (p. 2). My discussion of critical qualitative inquiry on public policy focuses on ways critical qualitative approaches can be used to illuminate federal and state public policymaking processes carried out by formal institutions like Congress and state legislatures. It should be noted that public policy can be, and is, created outside of these formal processes (Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993), and my focus on federal and state policymaking does not prevent the potential application of my discussion to other types of policymaking actors or bodies, such as school boards and city councils.

Conceptual Framework

My exploration of critical qualitative inquiry’s potential for examining veiled dimensions of public policymaking is guided by ideas put forth by Nadel (1975) and Fielding (2020). Nadel points out that even though the government is a public entity and the policies it produces are assumed to be public, public policymaking are shaped by private networks within policymaking bodies that represent their interests. This creates a paradox in which public governments representing private organizations and interests are producing policy that is deemed public but is actually both public and private. Nadel suggests that the only way to resolve this paradox is to examine both the private, hidden aspects and players and their relationship and input with the public government organization.

Fielding (2020) offers critical qualitative inquiry as one approach to explore these hidden dimensions, noting that critical qualitative inquiry can have a great deal of impact because epistemologically this approach seeks “to reveal what is unknown and unexpected about the social world” (p. 143). A part of this requires researchers to start asking questions about the place of research in the public policymaking process and engage with policymakers to understand and challenge traditional criteria for knowledge and evidence used to inform policy decisions.

Keeping these theoretical ideas in mind, this article demonstrates how to use critical qualitative inquiry to demystify and engage with the public policymaking process related to issues of rhetoric, development, power, equity, and activism. For each issue, researcher questions are generated along with recommendations for critical qualitative inquiry.

Critical Qualitative Inquiry

Qualitative inquiry seeks to make sense of, interpret, construct, and report on particular and unique phenomena, context, processes, culture, and history in terms of the meanings people bring to them. There are many types of qualitative paradigms—post-positivist, interpretative, constructivists, post-modern, critical, and others (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). All of these qualitative paradigms share a belief that there is no one singular truth, but many truths shaped by a person’s context, identities, and lived experiences. Qualitative inquiry utilizes multiple methods to discover the particular and unique lived experiences and to glean insight about a particular phenomenon, people, and/or culture. These methods may include interviews, participant observation, observation, document analysis, among many others (Saldana, 2011).

Critical paradigms hold specific, although also multiple, views about the nature of reality (ontology), ways of knowing one’s reality (epistemology), and methods for examining and understanding that reality through research (methodology). Critical ontologies often hold that some forms of reality have been created by directed social bias that can result in inequity. To understand reality shaped by social bias that has resulted in human inequities, it is necessary first to look at realities from the perspectives of those who have been oppressed. Systems of power and privilege that masquerade as just and normal can, and likely will, be revealed. So then, critical qualitative inquiry involves the investigation of phenomena with the explicit goal of identifying, exposing, and critiquing inequity for the purpose of promoting equitable change, social and otherwise (Pasque et al., 2012). My discussion of critical qualitative inquiry and the recommendations I offer here are broad, encompassing different types of critical epistemologies, approaches/traditions, and methods.

Utilizing Critical Qualitative Inquiry to Demystify Policymaking

The desire to demystify public policymaking is not new, and the fields of political science and public policy, in particular, have long and rich histories of debating and examining the hidden and complicated process of policymaking. My discussion of how to use critical qualitative inquiry to demystify policymaking is meant for all scholars who have an interest in examining public policy and public policymaking in their field of interest as well as those who wish to become more engaged in research for policy advocacy.

As a higher education policy researcher (see Gandara & Jones, 2020; Jones, 2019, 2020; Jones & Brown, 2020), I draw upon the fields of higher education specifically and education generally as a guides. However, my discussion is framed in broad terms so that researchers outside of education can utilize it for their own fields of study. In Diem et al.’s (2014) review of the critical educational policy literature, five areas emerged as significant foci for critical scholars:

The difference between policy rhetoric and practiced reality.

The roots and development of policy as it relates to what problems are addressed and how it reifies power.

The distribution of power, resources, knowledge, and the creation of “winners” and “losers.”

Social stratification, the broader effect a policy has on reproducing inequality and privilege.

Resistance as practiced by members of nondominant groups to processes of domination and oppression and how these groups engage in activism and use of participatory methods to employ agency within schools (p. 1072).

Using these five areas as a guide, I demonstrate the ways in which public policymaking remains hidden and unexamined and how critical qualitative inquiry can help to raise awareness, questioning, and critique for greater civic engagement.

Differences Between Rhetoric and Reality

Critical policy scholars are concerned with the way policy becomes political theater, more symbolic and aspirational than practical and impactful toward addressing real problems and needs. The distance between policy development and implementation can be fraught with misinterpretation, misalignment, and unintended consequences (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980). Past policy implementation studies have focused on the alignment between policy intentions, implementation, and outcomes (Goggin, 1987; Kiser, 1999; O’Toole, 2000; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983). Critical qualitative inquiry can shift the focus to undervalued and marginalized perspectives, stories, and counternarratives about the implementation of public policy. For example, highlighting the perspectives of key stakeholders who implement policy can provide valuable perspectives are often not considered in the construction of policies but nevertheless play an important role in the ways in which policies are interpreted, adopted, and carried out. The following are key questions that should be raised regarding these unexplored areas:

Who are the stakeholders responsible for interpreting and implementing the policy?

What role did these stakeholders play during the development of the policy?

What shaped their interpretation and implementation of the policy?

What parts of the policy were addressed in implementation? What parts were discarded (and why were they are discarded)?

What are the intended and unintended consequences of the policy?

How did stakeholders perceive the effectiveness of the policy at meeting it’s intended goals?

What kind of feedback loops were put in place throughout the development and implementation of the policy?

Several critical qualitative approaches can be employed to address these questions. For example, critical narrative inquiry can provide narratives (and counter narratives) of stakeholder experiences with implementing policy and the impact of policy on their lives. Critical ethnography can capture and examine the environments and institutional cultures and communities in which policies are implemented, offering valuable insight into how and why policies fail or succeed in certain contexts. One example of this is Harrison and Contreras’s (2022) ethnographic study of California’s Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) which found disparities between the law’s intention to remedy the impact of the state’s carbon cap-and-trade system on racially marginalized, working-class, and Indigenous communities and the policy’s implementation.

Roots and Development of Policy

Two of the most amorphous aspects of policymaking are identifying where it actually starts and how it evolves over time. As Lester et al. (2016) explains, there are people, places, forces, and periods of time within the policymaking process that are not public or evident to outsiders. The who, how, when, and where of policymaking matters for several reasons: (a) identifying all of the players and their intentions can reveal sources of influence; (b) identifying how policy is being framed and what language is being used to frame it can expose who and what is being privileged, devalued, or excluded; (c) understanding when policy is being cultivated and deliberated can highlight the influence of context, crisis, and other forces; and (d) identifying the contexts and spaces where policy is being cultivated and deliberated can unveil particular actors, tactics, and constraints on the deliberation of policy.

Identifying All the Players and Their Intentions

Identifying all the players who are influencing the policy and their motives can assist with understanding how a policy problem came to be understood as a problem, why it is framed a particular way, what solutions are being proposed to address the problem, who stands to benefit from the policy, and who may be hurt by the policy (Peters & Marshall, 1993). Kella (2019) highlights the importance of identifying all of the players when he points out how Texas advocacy groups write policy that gets shopped around for adoption. This writing of policy before it actually becomes policy is often called “ghostwriting” or scripting legislation and is an excellent example of how shadow participants can influence policy in many contexts.

Identifying How Policy is Being Framed and What Language is Being Used to Frame it

While critical qualitative scholars have examined policies and policymaking to unveil covert agendas designed to serve private interests, there is less discussion about how these interests are inserted into policy. Language can be used to mask or exclude but also to include provisions, special interests, and communities in implicit ways that are politically palatable. For example, state policymakers have begun implementing more race-neutral methods of both targeting and excluding communities of color in areas such as education, welfare, and housing (Drakulich, 2015; Mendelberg, 2017). In previous scholarship, it has been noted that state policymakers often use vague language that fails to address racial equity or provide guidance on how to address racial equity (Casellas Connors, 2021; Koski, 2007).

Understanding When Policy is Being Cultivated and Deliberated

Often policymaking is portrayed in a very linear and rational manner−a bill is introduced, debated, and adopted or rejected. However, bills that are introduced often are not entirely new. They retain pieces of older proposals and other bills from other legislative bodies. Kingdon (1995) describes how a “policy window,” or an alignment between political conditions, a policy problem, and potential solution, can elevate a dormant policy to the public policy agenda. Consequently, tracking when policy proposals are introduced and seriously considered can provide insight into the ways in which the political environment created opportunities for the support of a policy as well as what opportunities and openings citizens and scholars can seize upon in the future.

Identifying the Contexts and Spaces Where Policy is Being Cultivated and Deliberated

One of the least defined conceptions within policy is the policy arena. The term public policy arena is given varied meanings by political analysts (e.g., Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988; Parsons, 1997). Some identify specific governmental action channels like actual policies and laws. Some point to the array of social institutions that shape public policy like the state and federal legislature. Others include all the above in addition to the allocative processes involved. Others refer to public policy arenas as the discourse around specific areas of policy, such as education or social welfare.

Identifying the informal and formal institutions, contexts, and spaces that shape public policy can glean insight into the ways in which the policy is being discussed, how different players participate in the conversation, and tracking the places in which policies are proposed and deliberated so that duplication and new iterations of old policies can be recognized. With new policy arenas there may be new players using old playbooks from previous policies, both successful and failed, to shape the development of new policy proposals. For example, Kella (2019) highlights how a lot of policy work is done in task force groups not accessible to the public. Conservative pro-life legislators have taken advantage of this, enacting over 2,000 bills into law by copying the language of bills in one state to propose similar (even identical) bills in other states. State policy arenas appear to be especially vulnerable to this kind of duplication strategy because there is less transparency, accountability, and general public knowledge about how state government works (Grumbach, 2018; Kella, 2019; Kirst et al., 1984). Critical policy scholars can build on previous studies to create a corpus of empirical research that can identify patterns across different legislative bodies.

The following questions can be posed to help uncover hidden actors, spaces, and moments in the policymaking process:

What actors or entities initiated and helped propose the idea and language for the policy?

How is the problem being framed and by whom?

What is the goal/intention/benefit to the group/entity responsible for crafting the language?

What communities stand to win or lose as a result of the policy?

When and in what contexts, places, and spaces has this policy been shaped?

Who was involved in the formulation at each stage?

Are there emerging patterns in language and ideas across different policy bodies for an issue? If so, where and from whom did this pattern originate?

Within critical qualitative inquiry there has been a reliance on what can be found in the policy text to interrogate the intent and interests of the policy discourse. However, there is much less inquiry about the origins and actors who presented the initial proposal. Critical qualitative case study could utilize participant observations, even covert observations of public and private forums, meetings, and task forces to captures how the language and strategies emerge to formulate and adopt policy. In addition, critical phenomenological study could also be very useful in its ability to capture the experience of a few in formulating a proposal and understanding the essence and shared understanding of what the policy proposal meant.

(Re)Distributions of Power

Policies do not exist in a vacuum, they are developed, deliberated, and implemented by people and their connection to power. Weber (1978) defines power as the probability that an actor will be able to realize his own objectives against opposition from others with whom he is in social relationship. These social relationships are associated with different types and levels of levels of stratification. Foucault’s (1982) defines power as something that is produced through social networks that can be exerted by and onto individuals, groups, and actions. When conceptualized in these ways, the persons who occupy positions within policymaking bodies can influence the public policymaking process in covert and insidious ways that have disparate benefits and costs for different communities.

Interrogating the Power Distribution

Identifying a policy problem is very much tied to the lens from which the problem is analyzed (Hankivsky, 2014; Harper, 2009; McPhail, 2003). Those who are in the position of power to create policy are often disconnected from those who are most impacted by those policies. As a result, public policies that seek to support and address marginalized and underrepresented populations are often inadequate and inappropriate (Schneider & Ingram, 2005). In addition, public policy continues to be used to control and debilitate the economic and social advancement of communities of color (Alford & Friedland, 1975; Blessett, 2015; Gunderson, 2020; Murji, 2017).

Interrogating the Resource Distribution

The mechanisms, levers, and strategies used to distribute and retain are varied and complex. This may be one reason why details related to fiscal policies are often misunderstood or minimized in the public discourse (Gándara, 2020; Tanaka, 2007). Much like tax law, many believe that to even broach the topic, one must possess a high level of technical expertise. This can provide the perfect cover for elites who wish to shift resources and benefits without opposition or even detection. An example of this can be seen in Burnette’s (2014) examination of state capital spending on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) versus predominantly White institutions (PWIs). He found several instances of disparities in capital spending between the two types of institutions and evidence that state legislative appropriations were willfully ignoring the exceptional work HBCUs were doing in educating Black students.

Interrogating Knowledge Distribution

Within the policy community there is a pervasive reliance on “evidence-based” policymaking without an explicit discussion or delineation about what constitutes as evidence (Marston & Watts, 2003). An emergent debate is occurring about evidence-based policymaking, and there is a strong argument that what constitutes evidence is politically constructed to privilege certain forms of data and perspectives. A core part of the critical qualitative paradigm is its epistemology (i.e., the different forms of knowledge and ways of knowing). Privileging certain types of knowledge not only skews perceptions about what problems exist and how they should be solved, but it can also result in the devaluation of other sources of knowledge and the perspectives they represent. Also, hidden insiders within the policymaking process not only have access but a great deal of authority in the policymaking process (Maloney et al., 1994). Consequently, knowledge of the public policymaking process itself is a resource for retaining power.

In recent years, there has also been more attention given to the importance of epistemic justice, or the effort to include perspectives, methods, and forms of knowledge and evidence that are more inclusive (See: Baker & Constant, 2020; Veillette et al., 2021). Attending to epistemic justice aligns with using critical qualitative approaches because critical qualitative inquiry values different perspectives and voices and affirms them as knowers of their reality (Ashby, 2011). It also allows researchers to interrogate and identify whose knowledge is considered central to problem identification, problem framing, data collection, and policy solutions.

Critical questions that can be posed to uncover the way power, resources, and knowledge are distributed within the public policymaking process include the following:

Who benefits from the policy proposal?

What groups are burdened by this policy?

How are or were different communities, particularly historically marginalized communities, included in the policy proposal and deliberation process?

What were the criteria used to make the decision? Could there be other criteria?

What would be a more equitable, participative, and effective public process to address this issue?

Who is a knowledgeable resource on the topic? Were they included? How were they included?

How were data collection methods chosen?

How was the “truth” or “evidence” determined within the data collected?

How is the truth represented and who represents it?

There are several ways these questions can be addressed through critical qualitative inquiry. Policy archeology is a critical qualitative approach that can be used to examine the distribution of power, resources, and knowledge. Drawing from Foucault (1970/1974, 1972/2002) for inspiration, Scheurich (1994) defines policy archeology as an approach that allows for the study of the social construction of problems and examines the interplay of history and social regularities in framing what constitutes a legitimized policy problem. It can include critical case study utilizing ethnographic and narrative methods that capture untold stories, artifacts, and documentation about the ways in which power, resources, and knowledge are used and distributed that may not appear in the official policy record.

(Re)Producing Inequity and Oppression

Perhaps the most researched area by critical qualitative researchers within public policymaking is social stratification and inequity. This is largely because addressing and solving inequity lies at the heart of what drives critical scholars. Within the critical policy space, there is an effort to connect history to policy (e.g., Baldridge, 2019; Diamond & Lewis, 2022; Felix & Trinidad, 2020), but more work can and needs to be done in this area. Many times, public policy is not only ahistorical, but vague and not prescriptive. This is by design. It is more politically advantageous to propose and adopt a policy when the language and methods for executing it are vague and can be broadly applied. Once it is disconnected from particular histories of oppression and discrimination, it can seemingly serve the interests of all. Unfortunately, public policy created without consideration of systemic oppression and various racial, ethnic, gendered, sexual identity, able-bodied, and religious hegemonies and histories cannot address the problems those systems and hegemonies created. There needs to be more examination and interrogation about how policy proposals and policy solutions are connected to history, particularly histories that subjugate and exclude different types of communities.

In recent years, critical qualitative researchers have called attention to the ways in which policy language can privilege certain cultures while communicating deficit ideas and stereotypes about other cultures (Russell et al., 2022; Villenas & Deyhle, 1999). Sometimes, the absence of language about particular groups and persons can also demonstrate the ways in which they are devalued and excluded. There also needs to be more interrogation into the structures, processes, and strategies proposed for achieving policy outcomes, particularly the ways in which policies fail to support or create unintended consequences that maintain or exacerbate social stratification and inequity.

Critical questions that can uncover the way public policy maintains and exacerbates social stratification and inequity include the following:

What is the historical background of this policy problem?

What historical inequities may be attached to the communities impacted by this policy, and how will this policy relieve, maintain, or exacerbate those inequities?

How may identity and societal perceptions about identity inform the values, assumptions, and knowledge about those impacted or ignored by this policy?

How have different communities interacted and engaged with policymakers, the press, and public about this issue?

Is discourse about the policy focused on systems or individuals?

What solutions have been tried and were there any unintended consequences?

Have compromises been struck that left some groups out of previous solutions?

Who was involved in striking those compromises?

How are different groups differentially impacted by the problem?

There are a number of ways critical qualitative inquiry can be undertaken to unveil how policy maintains and exacerbates inequity, including the use of historical case studies, portraiture, counter storytelling to dominant narratives, critical ethnography, and critical discourse analysis. Critical theories, such as critical race theory (CRT), can also identify, analyze, and transform those aspects of policy that support subordination and White hegemony. One example of the power of critical theory paired with qualitative inquiry is Rodriguez et al.’s (2022) critical ethnography on the racialization of undocumented students within schools. By conducting participant observations of student-teacher interactions and interviews, she was able to demonstrate how the intended aims of Title 1 to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies for children from low-income families resulted in the creation of racialized organizations that devalue Latinx undocumented youth.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a popular method for examining the way social stratification and inequity are codified through language. CDA can highlight how ideologies, beliefs, and messages support a larger hegemonic structure that shapes practices and relationships between different groups of people, particularly between those with power and those without it (Fairclough, 2013; Liasidou, 2008). While examining policy text is an important part of this work, more research needs to be done on what is not in the text. Ball (1993) emphasizes that policy as a text is both a product and a component of policy discourse. One question that is not commonly explored is about the role of the public policymaking process itself, including how public policymaking rituals, protocols, etiquettes, and traditions limit who can participate and how.

Resistance and Activism

DeSantis (2010) defines public policy advocacy as an act of civic participation to influence public policy that is viewed as undesirable and unfair but changeable. Advocacy organizations often represent perspectives and needs that are overlooked or minimized. Ultimately, the goal of critical qualitative inquiry is to help inform and empower advocates, organizations, and communities to resist and dismantle systems, policies, and practices that oppress through disenfranchisement, discrimination, marginalization, and exclusion. A key part of this work is to identify moments, places, and approaches for engagement and advocacy. Some states and organizations are much further along in establishing relationships and influence. Critical qualitative researchers can provide examples in which engagement is occurring (e.g., Homsy, 2018; Valenzuela, 2019), providing a guide and further clarity to inform others who may not be privy to this information. In addition, because there is wide variation in the state and federal contexts for particular issues, there needs to be more consideration about how contextual factors complicate advocacy and engagement and the lessons that can be gleaned from similar contexts.

Critical qualitative researchers can ask the following questions to help them think about ways to identify examples of and opportunities for advocacy and resistance:

What are examples of engagement, advocacy, and resistance for the policy issue of interest?

How does the local or state context provide support or create challenges for these examples of engagement, advocacy, and resistance?

What technical lessons can be gleaned from the approaches and strategies utilized?

One way to highlight examples is to use critical qualitative narratives, specifically counternarratives from activists and others who have successfully resisted within policy arenas. Another way to highlight activist narratives is by using portraiture case studies. For example, Hornberger (2017) utilized portraiture to provide an example of three language activists fighting for Indigenous language reclamation and Vega et al. (2022) utilized testimonies of recovery as an act of resistance to elevate an intersectional consciousness to the work and experiences of racialized students and faculty at Hispanic Serving Institutions.

Critical qualitative scholars can also form coalitions with other nonlegislative policy actors, such as policy intermediaries and associations. Most importantly, through their research, critical qualitative researchers can raise visibility and awareness about places, times, and approaches that the public, including academics, can use to inform, advocate, identify concerns, question, and voice their opposition. There are still many unknowns when it comes to coalition building and advocacy within the public policymaking process. Many of these questions lie at the intersections of the previously discussed areas of unknowns. For example, more critical narrative, ethnographic, and phenomenological case studies are needed about intermediary organizations so that their technical knowledge and tools, as well as experiences of barriers, challenges, and micro-politics is shared (Orphan et al., 2021).

One underutilized approach for critical qualitative research to explore opportunities for resistance and advocacy is the development of new theoretical frameworks. In Parthasarathy’s (2010) essay, she introduces a framework and provided an example of ways activists can traverse science and technology policy domains to participate in the policymaking process. Similarly, Diem and Welton (2017) draw upon historical and current examples to conceptualize how communities can organize to disrupt policy spaces and engage in advocacy.

Summary: CQI and Lifting the Veil

The public within the United States, including scholars who engage in research that can inform policy, is largely uninformed about the policymaking process, and many believe they have no legitimate access to this process and, more importantly, no perspective of importance to contribute. Voting matters because it determine who will represent the citizenry and how they will be represented. However, voting is not enough; there needs to be space and time in the public policymaking process that allow for citizens, advocates, and activists to participate and share their perspectives and knowledge for more informed policymaking. Using critical qualitative inquiry, scholars can help identify opportunities for civic engagement, advocacy, and disruption that critiques, informs, and shapes policymaking for the better. Lifting the veil from public policymaking requires asking critical questions about who is involved in public policymaking, where it occurs (formal and informal places), and to what end and benefit. Critical qualitative inquiry can help us reconceptualize how the public thinks about public policymaking so that those traditionally excluded from the process are empowered to hold policymakers accountable for representing all citizens.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sosanya M. Jones

Author Biography

Sosanya M. Jones, Ed.D. (she/her/hers) is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in the School of Education at Howard University where she teaches courses on governance, policy, and advanced qualitative research. Her research focuses on the nexus between policy and practice for diversity, equity, and inclusion in higher education. Dr. Jones also works with educational policy intermediary organizations on issues related to equity and race.

References

Alford

R. R.

Friedland

(1975). Political participation and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 429–479.

Anderson

J. E.

(2014). Public policymaking. Cengage Learning.

Ashby

C. E.

(2011). Whose “voice” is it anyway? Giving voice and qualitative research involving individuals that type to communicate. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(4), 1–21.

Azari

J. R.

Smith

J. K.

(2012). Unwritten rules: Informal institutions in established democracies. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1), 37–55.

Baker

Constant

N. L.

(2020). Epistemic justice and the integration of local ecological knowledge for marine conservation: Lessons from the Seychelles. Marine Policy, 117, 103921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103921

Baldridge

B. J.

(2019). Reclaiming community: Race and the uncertain future of youth work. Stanford University Press.

Ball

S. J.

(1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. The Australian Journal of Education Studies, 13(2), 10–17.

Bergbower

M. L.

Allen

L. G.

(2021). Trust in the American political parties and support for public policy: Why Republicans benefit from political distrust. Journal of Trust Research, 11(1), 42–58.

Biggs

Helms

L. B.

(2014). The practice of American public policymaking. Routledge.

10.

Binder

S. A.

Smith

S. S.

(2001). Politics or principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate. Brookings Institution Press.

11.

Blessett

(2015). Disenfranchisement: Historical underpinnings and contemporary manifestations. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 3–50.

12.

Burnette

D. E.

(2014). An Analysis of Public Higher Education Finance: Capital Expenditures of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Predominantly White Institutions. In Scarborough, NAAAS Conference Proceedings (pp. 1419–1446). National Association of African American Studies.

13.

Cairney

Oliver

(2020). How should academics engage in policymaking to achieve impact? Political Studies Review, 18(2), 228–244.

14.

Casellas Connors

. (2021). Constructing a monolith: State policy, institutional DEI plans, and the flattening of Latinx identity at Hispanic-serving institutions. AERA Open, 7.

15.

DeSantis

(2010). Voices from the margins: Policy advocacy and marginalized communities. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 1(1), 23–45.

16.

Diamond

J. B.

Lewis

A. E.

(2022). Opportunity hoarding and the maintenance of “White” educational space. American Behavioral Scientist, 66(11), 1470–1489.

17.

Diem

Welton

A. D.

(2017). Disrupting spaces for education policymaking and activism. In Diem

Welton

A. D.

(Eds.), Mending walls: Historical, socio-political, economic, and geographic perspectives (pp. 219–238). Information Age Publishing.

18.

Diem

Young

M. D.

Welton

A. D.

Mansfield

K. C.

Lee

P. L.

(2014). The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(9), 1068–1090.

19.

Drakulich

K. M.

(2015). Explicit and hidden racial bias in the framing of social problems. Social Problems, 62(3), 391–418.

20.

Fairclough

(2013). Language and power. Routledge.

21.

Felix

E. R.

Trinidad

(2020). The decentralization of race: Tracing the dilution of racial equity in educational policy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(4), 465–490.

22.

Fielding

N. G.

(2020). Critical qualitative research and impact in the public sphere. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), 142–152.

23.

Foucault

(1974). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. Tavistock. (Original work published 1970)

24.

Foucault

(1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.

25.

Foucault

(2002). The archaeology of knowledge. Routledge. (Original work published 1972)

26.

Gándara

(2020). How the sausage is made: An examination of a state funding model design process. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(2), 192–221.

27.

Gandara

Jones

(2020). Who deserves benefits in higher education? A policy discourse analysis of a process surrounding reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The Review of Higher Education, 44(1), 121–157.

28.

Gandara

Kim

(2022, November 6). How universities can support faculty of color to engage with policymakers and practitioners. William T. Grant Foundation. https://wtgrantfoundation.org/how-universities-can-support-faculty-of-color-to-engage-with-policymakers-and-practitioners

29.

Goggin

M. L.

(1987). Policy design and the politics of implementation: The case of child health care in the American states. University of Tennessee Press.

30.

Grumbach

J. M.

(2018). From backwaters to major policymakers: Policy polarization in the states, 1970–2014. Perspectives on Politics, 16(2), 416–435.

31.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). SAGE.

32.

Gunderson

(2020). Representation, incorporation, and corrections spending: The counterbalancing effect of Black political incorporation. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 5(3), 573–603.

33.

Hankivsky

(2014). Rethinking care ethics: On the promise and potential of an intersectional analysis. American Political Science Review, 108(2), 252–264.

34.

Harper

S. R.

(2009). Race-conscious student engagement practices and the equitable distribution of enriching educational experiences. Liberal Education, 95(4), 38–45.

35.

Harrison

J. L.

Contreras

G.-A.

(2022). The subtle production of quiescence: Tracing the neoliberalization of environmental justice policy implementation. Environmental Justice, 16(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2021.0090

36.

Hilgartner

Bosk

C. L.

(1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78.

37.

Homsy

G. C.

(2018). Unlikely pioneers: Creative climate change policymaking in smaller US cities. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 8(2), 121–131.

38.

Hornberger

N. H.

(2017). Portraits of three language activists in Indigenous language reclamation. Language Documentation and Description, 14, 160–175.

39.

Jones

(2019). This bridge feels like a tightrope: For critical scholars who engage in policy research. American Behavioral Scientist, 63, 404–420.

40.

Jones

(2020). An examination of policy in practice: A case study of inclusionary internationalization. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 19(2), 72–86.

41.

Jones

Brown

(2020). Changing the narrative: UNCF and its role in policy advocacy for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 9, 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-020-00098-6

42.

Kella

(2019, November 10). Ghostwriting the government. Harvard Political Review. https://harvardpolitics.com/ghostwriting-the-government/

43.

Kingdon

J. W.

(1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies (2nd ed.). HarperCollins.

44.

Kinney

E. D.

(1999). Behind the veil where the action is: Private policy making and American Health Care. Administrative Law Review, 51, 145–197.

45.

Kirst

M. W.

Meister

Rowley

S. R.

(1984). Policy issue networks: Their influence on state policymaking. Policy Studies Journal, 13(2), 247–263.

46.

Kiser

(1999). Comparing varieties of agency theory in economics, political science, and sociology: An illustration from state policy implementation. Sociological Theory, 17(2), 146–170.

47.

Koski

(2007). Examining state environmental regulatory policy design. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 483–502.

48.

Lester

J. N.

Lochmiller

C. R.

Gabriel

(2016). Locating and applying critical discourse analysis within education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(102), 1–15.

49.

Liasidou

(2008). Critical discourse analysis and inclusive educational policies: The power to exclude. Journal of Education Policy, 23(5), 483–500.

50.

Lindblom

C. E.

Woodhouse

E. J.

(1993). The policy making process (3rd ed.). Pearson.

51.

Malin

Lubienski

(2022). Information pollution in an age of populist politics. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(94), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6144

52.

Maloney

W. A.

Jordan

McLaughlin

A. M.

(1994). Interest groups and public policy: The insider/outsider model revisited. Journal of Public Policy, 14(1), 17–38.

53.

Marston

Watts

(2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), 143–163.

54.

McPhail

B. A.

(2003). A feminist policy analysis framework: Through a gendered lens. The Social Policy Journal, 2(2–3), 39–61.

55.

Mendelberg

(2017). The race card. Princeton University Press.

56.

Mihailidis

Foster

(2021). The cost of disbelief: Fracturing news ecosystems in an age of rampant media cynicism. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(4), 616–631.

57.

Mondon

(2022). Populism, public opinion, and the mainstreaming of the far right: The “immigration issue” and the construction of a reactionary “people.” Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957221104726

58.

Murji

(2017). Racism, policy and politics. Policy Press.

59.

Nadel

M. V.

(1975). The hidden dimension of public policy: Private governments and the policy-making process. The Journal of Politics, 37(1), 2–34.

60.

Niebler

(2022). Book review: Minority party misery: Political powerlessness and electoral disengagement. Party Politics, 28(4), 789–790.

61.

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. (2000). Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 263–288.

62.

Oliver

Cairney

(2019). The dos and don’ts of influencing policy: A systematic review of advice to academics. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 21.

63.

Orphan

C. M.

Laderman

Gildersleeve

R. E.

(2021). Advocates or honest information brokers? Examining the higher education public policy agenda-setting processes of intermediary organizations. The Review of Higher Education, 44(3), 325–355.

64.

Parsons

M. D.

(1997). Power and politics: Federal higher education policymaking in the 1990s. State University of New York Press.

65.

Parthasarathy

(2010). Breaking the expertise barrier: Understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Science and Public Policy, 37(5), 355–367.

66.

Pasque

Carducci

Kuntz

A. K.

Gildersleeve

R. E.

(2012). Qualitative inquiry for equity in higher education: Methodological innovations, implications, and interventions (ASHE Higher Education Report, 37(6)). Jossey-Bass.

67.

Perna

(2019). The role and contribution of academic researchers in congressional hearings: A critical discourse analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 111–145.

68.

Peters

Marshall

(1993). Educational policy analysis and the politics of interpretation: The search for a well-defined problem. Evaluation Review, 17(3), 310–330.

69.

Rodriguez

Deane

K. C.

Davis

C. H.

III . (2022). Towards a framework of racialized policymaking in higher education. In Perna

L. W.

(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 37, pp. 519–599). Springer.

70.

Russell

Oddleifson

Russell Kish

Kaplan

(2022). Countering deficit narratives in quantitative educational research. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 27(1), 14.

71.

Sabatier

P. A.

Mazmanian

D. A.

(1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538–560.

72.

Sabatier

P. A.

Mazmanian

D. A.

(1983). The prospects for effective implementation of regulatory policy. In Sabatier

P. A.

Mazmanian

D. A.

(Eds.), Can regulation work? The implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative (pp. 1–26). Springer.

73.

Saldana

(2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.

74.

Scheurich

J. J.

(1994). Policy archaeology: A new policy studies methodology. Journal of Education Policy, 9(4), 297–316.

75.

Schneider

Ingram

(2005). Part II introduction, congressional discourse: Forging lines of division between deserving and undeserving. In Schneider

Ingram

(Eds.), Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy (pp. 105–110). State University of New York Press.

76.

Tanaka

(2007). Engaging the public in national budgeting: A non-governmental perspective. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(2), 139–177.

77.

Thornton

D. L.

(2000). Lifting the veil of secrecy from monetary policy: Evidence from the Fed’s early discount rate policy. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 32(2), 155–167.

78.

Valenzuela

(2019). The struggle to decolonize official knowledge in Texas’ state curriculum: Side-stepping the colonial matrix of power. Equity & Excellence in Education, 52(2–3), 197–215.

79.

van Holm

E. J

. (2019). Unequal cities, unequal participation: The effect of income inequality on civic engagement. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(2), 135–144.

80.

VanLandingham

Silloway

(2016). Bridging the gap between evidence and policy makers: A case study of the Pew-MacArthur results first initiative. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 542–546.

81.

Vega

B. E.

Liera

Boveda

(2022). Hispanic-serving institutions as racialized organizations: Elevating intersectional consciousness to reframe the “H” in HSIs. AERA Open, 8.

82.

Veillette

Claveau

Catala

(2021). Towards an epistemic evaluation of think tank ecosystems: The case of epistemic justice. In Landry

(Ed.), Critical perspectives on think tanks (pp. 215–233). Edward Elgar.

83.

Villenas

Deyhle

(1999). Critical race theory and ethnographies challenging the stereotypes: Latino families, schooling, resilience and resistance. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(4), 413–445.

84.

Weber

(1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 2). University of California Press.

Lifting the Veil: Utilizing Critical Qualitative Inquiry to Demystify the Public Policymaking Process

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction: Public Policy and Critical Research

Statement of Purpose

Conceptual Framework

Critical Qualitative Inquiry

Utilizing Critical Qualitative Inquiry to Demystify Policymaking

Differences Between Rhetoric and Reality

Roots and Development of Policy

Identifying All the Players and Their Intentions

Identifying How Policy is Being Framed and What Language is Being Used to Frame it

Understanding When Policy is Being Cultivated and Deliberated

Identifying the Contexts and Spaces Where Policy is Being Cultivated and Deliberated

(Re)Distributions of Power

Interrogating the Power Distribution

Interrogating the Resource Distribution

Interrogating Knowledge Distribution

(Re)Producing Inequity and Oppression

Resistance and Activism

Summary: CQI and Lifting the Veil

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biography

References