Examining rhetoric is important to understanding educational policymaking. This study focuses on rhetoric on one educational policy, performance-based funding (PBF) for higher education. In contrast to previous research on PBF, we analyze rhetoric in both states that implemented the policy and those that opted out. We employ a sequential mixed-methods design combining topic modeling with qualitative analysis of newspapers. Findings indicate that rhetoric in states that implemented PBF aligned closely with neoliberalism. Rhetoric from non-implementer states focused on higher education agents and policy processes, and was more likely to highlight equity than rhetoric from implementer states. This study sheds light on policy innovation and diffusion by contrasting rhetoric around PBF between states that implemented the policy and those that held out.
AbernathyP. M. (2018). The expanding news desert: Methodology. Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media, Hussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://www.usnewsdeserts.com/methodology
AiroldiE. M.BischofJ. M. (2016). Improving and evaluating topic models and other models of text. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 111(516), 1381–1403. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2015.1051182
5.
AlSumaitL.BarbaráD.GentleJ.DomeniconiC. (2009). Topic significance ranking of LDA generative models. In BuntineW.GrobelnikM.MlademićD.Shawe-TaylorJ. (Eds.), Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases (pp. 67–82). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04180-8
BallS. J. (2012). Global education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. Routledge.
8.
BaumgartenB.GrauelJ. (2009). The theoretical potential of website and newspaper data for analysing political communication processes. Historical Social Research, 34(1), 94–121. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.34.2009.1.94-121
9.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
10.
BellE.FryarA. H.HillmanN. (2018). When intuition misfires: A meta-analysis of research on performance-based funding in higher education. In HazelkornE.CoatesH.McCormickA. C. (Eds.), Research handbook on quality, performance and accountability in higher education (pp. 108–124). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785369759.00017
11.
BenoitK.WatanabeK.WangH.NultyP.ObengA.MüllerS.MatsuoA. (2018). Quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. The Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), Article 774. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00774
12.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963526
BousheyG. (2016). Targeted for diffusion? How the use and acceptance of stereotypes shape the diffusion of criminal justice policy innovations in the American states. American Political Science Review, 110(01), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055415000532
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003343
18.
Cohen-VogelL.IngleW. K.LevineA. A.SpenceM. (2008). The “spread” of merit-based college aid: Politics, policy consortia, and interstate competition. Educational Policy, 22(3), 339–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807307059
19.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209–240). SAGE.
20.
CrowD. A.LawlorA. (2016). Media in the policy process: Using framing and narratives to understand policy influences. Review of Policy Research, 33(5), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12187
21.
DaenekindtS.HuismanJ. (2020). Mapping the scattered field of research on higher education. A correlated topic model of 17,000 articles, 1991–2018. Higher Education, 80(3), 571–587.
22.
DiMaggioP.NagM.BleiD. (2013). Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of U.S. government arts funding. Poetics, 41(6), 570–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2013.08.004
23.
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S. (2015). The politics of performance funding for higher education: Origins, discontinuations, and transformations. Johns Hopkins University Press.
24.
DoughertyK. J.NatowR. S. (2020). Performance-based funding for higher education: How well does neoliberal theory capture neoliberal practice?Higher Education, 80(3), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00491-4
25.
DoyleW. R. (2006). Adoption of merit-based student grant programs: An event history analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 259–285. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028003259
26.
FeredayJ.Muir-CochraneE. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
27.
FeslerL.DeeT.BakerR.EvansB. (2019). Text as data methods for education research. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(4), 707–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1634168
28.
GándaraD. (2016). Constructing “winners and losers”: An analysis of higher education performance funding policy designs in Colorado and Texas [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Georgia.
29.
GándaraD. (2019). Does evidence matter? An analysis of evidence use in performance-funding policy designs in two states. The Review of Higher Education, 42(3), 991–1022.
30.
GándaraD. (2020). How the sausage is made: An examination of a state funding model design process. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(2), 192–221.
31.
GándaraD.RippnerJ.NessE. (2017). Exploring the “how” in policy diffusion: A national intermediary organization’s role in facilitating the spread of performance funding policies in the states. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(5), 701–725.
32.
GándaraD.RutherfordA. (2020). Completion at the expense of access? The effects of performance-funding policies on access to public four-year universities. Educational Researcher, 49(5), 321–334.
33.
GirouxH. A. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425–464. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.4.0515nr62324n71p1
34.
GorbunovA. V. (2013). Performance funding in public higher education: Determinants of policy shifts. Vanderbilt University Institutional Repository.http://hdl.handle.net/1803/12728
35.
HagoodL. P. (2019). The financial benefits and burdens of performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(2), 189–213.
HearnJ. C.McLendonM. K.MokherC. G. (2008). Accounting for student success: An empirical analysis of the origins and spread of state student unit-record systems. Research in Higher Education, 49(8), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9101-z
38.
HearnJ. C.NessE. C. (2017). The ecology of state higher-education policymaking in the US. In D. Palfreyman, T. Tapper & S. Thomas (Eds.), Towards the private funding of higher education (pp. 19–47). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315537412-3
39.
HillmanN. W.TandbergD. A.FryarA. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714560224
40.
HonnibalM.MontaniI. (2017). spaCy 2: Natural language understanding with Bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. Python package. citebay.com/how-to-cite/spacy
41.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
42.
JohnsonD. R.ZhangL. (2020). Examining the role of gender in educational policy formation: The case of campus sexual assault legislation, 2007–2017. Harvard Educational Review, 90(4), 617–643. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-90.4.617
43.
JonesD. S. (2014). Masters of the universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the birth of neoliberal politics (updated ed.). Princeton University Press.
44.
KarchA. (2007). Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. University of Michigan Press.
LacyT. A.TandbergD. A. (2014). Rethinking policy diffusion: The interstate spread of “finance innovations.”Research in Higher Education, 55(7), 627–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9330-2
48.
LiA. Y. (2017). Covet thy neighbor or “reverse policy diffusion”? State adoption of performance funding 2.0. Research in Higher Education, 58(7), 746–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9444-9
49.
MartinF.JohnsonM. (2015, December). More efficient topic modeling through a noun only approach. In HaheyB.WebsterK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2015 (pp. 111–115). https://aclanthology.org/U15-1013.pdf
McKeown-MoakM. P. (1999). Higher education funding formulas. New Directions for Higher Education, 1999(107), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.10710
52.
McLendonM. K.HearnJ. C.DeatonR. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028001001
53.
McLendonM. K.MokherC. G.FloresS. M. (2011). Legislative agenda setting for in-state resident tuition policies: Immigration, representation, and educational access. American Journal of Education, 117(4), 563–602.
54.
MillerG. N. S.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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1313084
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. 25, pp. 1–49). Springer.
59.
NessE. C.MistrettaM. A. (2009). Merit aid in North Carolina: A case study of a “nonevent.”Educational Policy, 24(5), 703–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904809339165
ReckhowS. (2012). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. Oxford University Press.
63.
ŘehůřekR.SojkaP. (2010). Software framework for topic modeling with large corpora. In Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks (pp. 46–50). University of Malta. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2393.1847
64.
ReichG.BarthJ. (2010). Educating citizens or defying federal authority? A comparative study of in-state tuition for undocumented students. Policy Studies Journal, 38(3), 419–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00368.x
Scott CarterJ.LippardC.BairdA. F. (2019). Veiled threats: Color-blind frames and group threat in affirmative action discourse. Social Problems, 66(4), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spy020
StarkeP. (2013). Qualitative methods for the study of policy diffusion: Challenges and available solutions. Policy Studies Journal, 41(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12032
74.
StoneD. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the “transnationalization” of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760410001694291
75.
SunM.LiuJ.ZhuJ.LeClairZ. (2019). Using a text-as-data approach to understand reform processes: A deep exploration of school improvement strategies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(4), 510–536. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719869318
76.
Tompkins-StangeM. E. (2020). Policy patrons: Philanthropy, education reform, and the politics of influence. Harvard Education Press.
77.
TuckE.GorlewskiJ. (2016). Racist ordering, settler colonialism, and edTPA: A participatory policy analysis. Educational Policy, 30(1), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815616483
78.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. The American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954434
79.
WardJ.OstB. (2021). The effect of large-scale performance-based funding in higher education. Education Finance & Policy, 16(1), 92–124. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00300
80.
WarmingtonP.GillbornD.RollockN.DemackS. (2018). “They can’t handle the race agenda”: Stakeholders’ reflections on race and education policy, 1993–2013. Educational Review, 70(4), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1353482
81.
WongK. K.ShenF. X. (2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16(1), 161–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904802016001009
82.
ZerqueraD.ZiskinM. (2020). Implications of performance-based funding on equity-based missions in US higher education. Higher Education, 80(6), 1153–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00535-0
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.
