Using congressional testimony on teacher quality from 2003 to 2015 and analysis of 60 elite interviews, we show how the political economy of knowledge production influences idea uptake in education policy discourse. We develop and assess a conceptual framework showing the organizational and financial infrastructure that links research, ideas, and advocacy in politics. We find that congressional hearing witnesses representing groups that received philanthropic grants are more likely to support teacher evaluation policies, but specific mentions of research in testimony are not a factor. Overall, our study shows that funders and advocacy groups emphasized rapid uptake of ideas to reform teacher evaluation, which effectively influenced policymakers but limited the use of research in teacher evaluation policy discourse.
CranmerS. J.DesmaraisB. A. (2011). Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Political Analysis, 19, 66–86.
10.
DeBrayE.HouckE. A. (2011). A narrow path through the broad middle: Mapping institutional considerations for ESEA reauthorization. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 319–337.
11.
DeBray-PelotE.McGuinnP. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15–42.
12.
DexterL. (1970). Elite and specialized interviewing. Northwestern University Press.
FeuerM. (2016). The rising price of objectivity: Philanthropy, government, and the future of education research. Harvard Education Press.
15.
FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.). (2014). Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill. Springer International.
16.
FisherD. R.WaggleJ.LeifeldP. (2013). Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the U.S. climate change debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 116(3), 523–545.
17.
Galey-HornS.ReckhowS.FerrareJ. J.JasnyL. (2020). Building consensus: Idea brokerage in teacher policy networks. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 872–905.
GilensM.PageB. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 564–581.
20.
GoldsteinK. (2002). Getting in the door: Sampling and completing elite interviews. Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 669–672.
21.
HeaneyM. T. (2004). Issue networks, information, and interest group alliances: The case of Wisconsin welfare politics, 1993-99. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4: 237–270.
22.
HenigJ. R. (2008). Spin cycle: How research gets used in policy debates: The case of charter schools. Russell Sage Foundation Press.
23.
HunterD. R.HandcockM. S.ButtsC. T.GoodreauS. M.MorrisM. (2008). Ergm: A package to fit, simulate, and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. Journal of Statistical Software, 24. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v024.i03
24.
Jenkins-SmithH. C.NohrstedtD.WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (2014). The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In SabatierP. A.WeibleC. M. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed.). Westview Press.
25.
KingdonJ. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Scott, Foresman.
26.
KirstM. W.WirtF. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.). McCutchan.
27.
LeifeldP. (2013). Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 169–198.
28.
LubellM. (2013). Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 537–559.
29.
LubienskiC.BrewerT. J.La LondeP. G. (2016). Orchestrating policy ideas: Philanthropies and think tanks in U.S. education policy advocacy networks. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43, 55–73.
30.
LubienskiC.WeitzelP.LubienskiS. T. (2009). Is there a “consensus” on school choice and achievement? Advocacy research and the emerging political economy of knowledge production. Educational Policy, 23(1), 161–193.
31.
MannaP.PetrilliM. J. (2008). Double standard? “Scientifically based research” and the No Child Left Behind Act. In HessF. M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 63–88). Harvard Education Press.
32.
McDonaldL. (2014). Think tanks and the media: How the conservative movement gained entry into the education policy arena. Educational Policy, 28(6), 845–880.
33.
McDonnellL. M.WeatherfordM. S. (2013). Organized interests and the common core. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 488–497.
34.
McGuinnP. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy, 1965-2005. University of Kansas Press.
35.
McGuinnP. (2018). Incentives and inducements: The feds fight federalism. In HessF. M.McShaneM. Q. (Eds.), Bush-Obama school reform: Lessons learned (pp. 51–68). Harvard Education Press.
36.
MendlingerS.CwikelJ. (2008). Spiraling between qualitative and quantitative data on women’s health behaviors: A double helix model for mixed methods. Qualitative Health Research, 18(2), 280–293.
37.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
38.
MetzF.LeifeldP.IngoldK. (2019). Interdependent policy instrument preferences: A two-mode network approach. Journal of Public Policy, 39(4), 609–636.
39.
MillsR. W.SelinJ. L. (2017). Don’t sweat the details! Enhancing congressional committee expertise through the use of detailees. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 42(4), 611–636.
40.
MitchellG.TetlockP. E.MellersB. A.OrdonezL. D. (1993). Judgments of social justice: Comparisons between equality and efficiency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 629–639.
41.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press.
42.
PenuelW. R.AllenA.CoburnC. E.FarrellC. (2015). Conceptualizing research-practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20,182–197.
43.
PernaL. W.OroszK.KentD. C. (2019). The role and contribution of academic researchers in congressional hearings: A critical discourse analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 56(1), 111–145.
44.
ReckhowS. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. Oxford University Press.
45.
ReckhowS.SnyderJ. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195.
46.
ReckhowS.Tompkins-StangeM. (2015). “Singing from the same hymnbook” at Gates and Broad. In HessF.HenigJ. (Eds.), The New education philanthropy: Politics, policy, and reform (pp. 55–78). Harvard Education Press.
47.
ReckhowS.Tompkins-StangeM. (2018). Financing the education policy discourse: Philanthropic funders as entrepreneurs in policy networks.”Interest Groups & Advocacy, 7(3), 258–288.
48.
RichA. (2004). Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge University Press.
49.
Rogers-DillonR. (2004). The welfare experiments: Politics and policy evaluation. Stanford University Press.
50.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106–136.
51.
ScottJ.DeBrayE.LubienskiC.La LondeP. G.CastilloE.OwenS. (2017). Urban regimes, intermediary organization networks, and research use: Patterns across three school districts. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(1), 16–28.
52.
ScottJ.JabbarH. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257.
53.
Tompkins-StangeM. (2016). Policy patrons: Philanthropy, education reform, and the politics of influence. Harvard Education Press.
54.
TsengV. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 3–16.
55.
TurleyR. N. (2016). Connecting research and policy to reduce inequality. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2, 272–285.
56.
WeilerH. (2009). Whose knowledge matters? Development and the politics of knowledge. In HanfT.WeilerH. N.DickowH. (Eds.), Festschrift for Peter Molt (pp. 485–496). Nomos.
57.
WeirM. (1992). Politics and jobs: The boundaries of employment policy in the United States. Princeton University Press.
58.
WoodB. D.TheobaldN. A. (2003). Political responsiveness and equity in public education finances. Journal of Politics, 65(3), 718–738.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
