Intermediary Organizations as More Than Just Spokes in the Wheel of Education Policy Reform?

• In Event: The Role and Potential of Intermediary Organizations Within the New Politics of Higher Education Policy Making

Abstract

Intermediary organizations (IOs) are a diverse group of entities that sit between decision-makers and implementers in complex institutional change processes. Recent literature on the role of IOs has emphasized these organizations’ position in the “new politics of education” (see DeBray-Pelot & McGuinn, 2009) and their connections to venture philanthropy (see Parry et al., 2013), questioning if they can ever be more than advocacy organizations that serve the needs of powerful ideological interests (e.g., Hammond et al., 2019; Miller & Morphew, 2017) or “spokes in an overall investment strategy” (Scott & Jabbar, 2014, p. 253). These questions are understandable given how IOs are typically conceptualized by scholars as passive participants in policymaking who either translate ideas between two communities (e.g., policymakers and educators) or as subservient pieces of advocacy coalitions (see Ness, 2010). A third perspective proposed by Honig (2004), however, is that IOs influence both agenda-setting organizations (i.e., policymakers, philanthropists) and implementors and practitioners. Honig and the authors of this study ask if IOs could serve as mediating structures or semi-autonomous brokers of a variety of resources that empower individuals and local organizations in the policymaking process (Berger & Neuhaus, 1977). In this study, we analyze how and to what extent all three frameworks describe the work of IOs that have participated in national philanthropic efforts focused on postsecondary student success. Researchers use a collective case study design (Stake, 1995) and interviews with both initiative grantees and grantors to develop a holistic understanding of IO work in this context and to discuss implications for policymakers, philanthropists, and postsecondary practitioners.

Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

DeBray-Pelot, E. & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15–42. https://doir.org/10.1177/0895904808328524

Hammond, L., Adams, P., Rubin, P. G., & Ness, E. C. (2019). A rhetorical analysis of intermediary organization documents on college completion policy. Educational policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819888231

Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65-87.

Miller, G. N. S. & Morphew, C. 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

Ness, E. C. (2010). The role of information in the policy process: Implications for the examination of research utilization in higher education policy. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXV, pp. 1–49). Springer.

Parry, M., Field, K., & Supiano, B. (2013, July 14). The Gates effect. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-gates-effect/

Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.

Authors

• Travis Heath Olson, Michigan State University

• Emily Parrott, Thrive Scholars