Fields from political science to critical education policy studies have long explored power relations in policy processes, showing who influences policy agendas, policy creation, and policy implementation. Yet showing particular actors’ influence on specific points in a policy text remains a methodological challenge. This article presents a five-stage, embedded mixed methods design for establishing influence on educational policy moving from a policy text outward. I use an example analysis of Australia’s policy making on boys’ education—the report Boys: Getting it Right (2002)—to show how data transformation measures, both quantitizing and qualitizing, within a larger qualitative study helped identify influence. This mixed design, I argue, can be useful in other research contexts, with variations for data availability and researcher resources.
AdlerP. A.AdlerP. (2003). The reluctant respondent. In HolsteinJ. A.GubriumJ. F. (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 153-173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AinsworthS. (2010). Methodological perspectives on interest groups. In MaiselL. S.BerryJ. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American political parties and interest groups (pp. 77-96). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
3.
AmentaE.CarenN.ChiarelloE.SuY. (2010). The political consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 287-307.
4.
AppleM. W. (1995). Education and power (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
AppleM. W. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
AppleM. W. (2006). Educating the “Right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
ArmstrongD.GoslingA.WeinmanJ.MarteauT. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31, 597-606.
8.
Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training. (2002). Boys: Getting it right. Report on the inquiry into the education of boys. Canberra, Australia: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
9.
BallS. J. (1994a). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
10.
BallS. J. (1994b). Researching inside the state: Issues in the interpretation of elite interviews. In HalpinD.TroynaB. (Eds.), Researching education policy: Ethical and methodological issues (pp. 107-120). London, England: Falmer Press.
11.
BallS. J. (2007). Education Plc: Understanding private sector participation in public sector education. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
12.
BallS. J. (2010). New states, new governance and new education policy. In AppleM. W.BallS. J.GandinL. A. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 155-166). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
13.
BanfieldE. C. (1961). Political influence. New York, NY: Free Press.
14.
BaumgartnerF. R.BerryJ. M.HojnackiM.KimballD. C.LeechB. L. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
BensimonE. M.MarshallC. (2000). Policy analysis for postsecondary education: Feminist and critical perspectives. In Glazer-RaymoJ.TownsendB. K.Ropers-HuilmanB. (Eds.), Women in higher education: A feminist perspective (2nd ed., pp. 133-147). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom.
16.
BhanjiZ. (2012). Transnational private authority in education policy in Jordan and South Africa: The case of Microsoft Corporation. Comparative Education Review, 56, 300-319.
17.
BhattaP. (2011). Aid agency influence in national education policy-making: A case from Nepal’s “Education for All” movement. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(1), 11-26.
18.
BrymanA. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113.
19.
CarspeckenP. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
21.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
DahlR. A. (2005). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
EisensteinH. (1996). Inside agitators: Australian femocrats and the state. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
24.
FaircloughN. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, England: Longman.
25.
FoucaultM. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (SmithA. M. S., Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
26.
GageN. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10.
27.
HessF. M.HenigJ. R. (2008, February6). “Scientific research” and policymaking. Education Week, 26, 36.
28.
HruschkaD. J.SchwartzD.St. JohnD. C.Picone-DecaroE.JenkinsR. A.CareyJ. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16, 307-331.
29.
KeddieA. (2005). A framework for gender justice: Evaluating the transformative capacities of three key Australian schooling initiatives. Australian Educational Researcher, 32, 83-102.
30.
KvaleS. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
32.
LatherP. (2004). This IS your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 15-34.
33.
LevinsonB. A. U.SuttonM.WinsteadT. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23, 767-795.
34.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35.
LingardB. (2003). Where to in gender policy in education after recuperative masculinity politics?International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7(1), 33-56.
36.
MadillA.JordanA.ShirleyC. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 1-20.
37.
MaxwellJ. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 475-482.
38.
McDermottK. A.DeBrayE.FrankenbergE. (2012). How does Parents Involved in Community Schools matter? Legal and political influence in education politics and policy. Teachers College Record, 114(12), 1-39.
39.
McFarlandA. (2010). Interest group theory. In MaiselL. S.BerryJ. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of American political parties and interest groups (pp. 37-56). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
40.
McNeilL. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
41.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42.
MertensD. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
MertensD. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.
44.
MeyerD. S. (2004). Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 125-145.
45.
Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs Gender Equity Taskforce. (1997). Gender equity: A framework for Australian schools. Canberra, Australia: Author.
46.
MorseJ. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological transformation. Nursing Research, 40, 120-123.
47.
MorseJ. M.NiehausL. (2009). Mixed methods design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
48.
NewmanA.DeschenesS.HopkinsK. (2011). From agitating in the streets to implementing in the suites: Understanding education policy reforms initiated by local advocates. Educational Policy, 26, 730-758.
49.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.TeddlieC. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
OpferV. D. (2001). Beyond self-interest: Educational interest groups and congressional influence. Educational Policy, 15(1), 135-152.
52.
OzgaJ.GewirtzS. (1994). Sex, lies and audiotape: Interviewing the education policy elite. In HalpinD.TroynaB. (Eds.), Researching education policy: Ethical and methodological issues (pp. 121-135). London, England: Falmer Press.
53.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
PruntyJ. J. (1985). Signposts for a critical educational policy analysis. Australian Journal of Education, 29, 133-140.
55.
RistR. C. (2003). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 619-644). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
RogersR.Malancharuvil-BerkesE.MosleyM.HuiD.JosephG. O. G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 365-416.
58.
SabatierP. A. (2007). Theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
59.
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
60.
SandelowskiM.VoilsC. I.KnaflG. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208-222.
61.
SongM.MiskelC. G. (2005). Who are the influentials? A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 7-48.
62.
StoneC. N. (2001). Powerful actors versus compelling actions. Educational Policy, 15, 153-167.
63.
TamirE. (2009). Capital, power and the struggle over teacher certification. Educational Policy, 24, 465-499.
TaylorS.RizviF.LingardB.HenryM. (1997). Educational policy and the politics of change. London, England: Routledge.
66.
TeddlieC.YuF. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
67.
Weaver-HightowerM. B. (2003). The “boy turn” in research on gender and education. Review of Educational Research, 73, 471-498.
68.
Weaver-HightowerM. B. (2006). Every good boy does fine: Policy ecology, masculinity politics, and the development and implementation of Australian policy on the education of boys, 2000-2005 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison.
69.
Weaver-HightowerM. B. (2008a). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call to complexity. Educational Researcher, 37, 153-167.
70.
Weaver-HightowerM. B. (2008b). The politics of policy in boys’ education: Getting boys “Right.” New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
71.
WhittemoreR.ChaseS. K.MandleC. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522-537.
72.
WillinskyJ. (2001). The Strategic Education Research Program and the public value of research. Educational Researcher, 30(1), 5-14.
Woodside-JironH. (2003). Critical policy analysis: Researching the roles of cultural models, power, and expertise in reading policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 530-536.
75.
WoolleyC. M. (2009). Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(1), 7-25.
