State Postsecondary Education Research: New Methods to Inform Policy and Practice (review)

Through examples and recommendations, this collection of policy research papers illustrates the methodological and practical challenges of multi-state policy research. In the introduction, Heller appropriately argues that, because of the decentralized form of education governance in the United States, states provide a useful unit of analysis for considering education policy. While the federal government influences higher education primarily through financial incentives, most education policy is set by individual states. Therefore cross-state comparisons are useful for examining policy implementation and outcomes. The book advocates for more multi-year and other comparative multi-state policy analyses.

While not critical of others, the editors also urge more complex, high-quality research models. The chapters illustrate a variety of research designs and methodological challenges in state-level policy research and offer rigorous models that would be useful for further investigations. While the authors report research results, in most cases their focus is the methodological issues presented by this kind of state-policy research. They also make recommendations for future research.

The most notable exception is Chapter 6, by Karen Paulson, which while interesting, is unique in its focus on what her research team learned about the relationship between the research and developing a policy agenda. This chapter‘s recommendations are about how to influence a state policy agenda, not about how to conduct policy research.

Kathleen Shaw and Thomas Bailey (Chapter 2) focus on the role of theory in policy change and research. They tested a model of policy change in relation to access to higher education for adult students. Their conclusion that theory must be adaptable suggests that theory in the context of policy may be better understood as a trail marker than a trail map. Theory provides a framework, but not an exact plan.

Jennifer Delaney and William Doyle (Chapter 3) advocate for more policy research that focuses on changes in state policy over time rather than only cross-sectional comparisons. They offer a methodologically interesting study of the role of higher education as a balancing factor in state budgets to illustrate a change-over-time model. They demonstrate how in lean fiscal years, such as this year in many states, states take disproportionately from higher education and in wealthy years, higher education is disproportionately advantaged over other state budget areas.

Doyle’s other contribution (Chapter 5) is an insider’s perspective on the development of the state scores in Measuring Up (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2000). While reading, at times I wished for more detail about the decision-making process and fewer technical details that gave some parts of the chapter the feel of a manual. Rarely do we get to talk with researchers about their rationales regarding choices in variable selection, coding, and research design.

A recurring theme is the importance of future research that focuses on policy formation and adoption, not just on the outcomes of policy research. Michael McLandon and James Hearn (Chapter 1) and Sara Goldrick-Rab and Kathleen Shaw (Chapter 4) both argue, from different methodological approaches, for a greater focus on policy formation and adoption, rather than just policy outcomes. For example, the consequences for student enrollment from welfare reform are better understood than the political forces and policy formation that brought about these policies. In their study of welfare reform, Goldrick-Rab and Shaw observed a substantial gap between the written legislation and its implementation in some states, powerfully illustrating that studies relying exclusively on official policy will be incomplete.

As the editors make clear, the book is not a comprehensive text on state policy research. It is better described as a collection of papers, something like a symposium or conference; they all hold together but each is the author’s unique contribution. Although individual chapters could be useful for teaching and senior scholars, I see the book as more helpful for early career policy scholars...