Evidence Use in Advocacy Coalitions: A Discourse Network Analysis of the Policy Innovators in Education Network

• In Event: 64.057 - Using Social Analysis Methods to Understand Education Interest Group Political Activity

Abstract

Objectives. As education advocacy organizations become increasingly influential in shaping public policy, researchers have begun looking to the ways these organizations use evidence to substantiate their agendas and build coalitions (Debray, Scott, Lubienski, & Jabbar, 2014; Scott & Jabbar, 2013). Prior research suggests that building advocacy coalitions involves engaging in discursive debates over core policy beliefs that shape how the public and policymakers think about policy issues (Sabatier & Weible, 2007). Building from this work, the present study uses discourse network analysis (Leifeld, 2013b) to analyze how members of the Policy Innovators in Education (PIE) Network use evidence to shape public perceptions about education policy and leverage their policy agendas.

Data. Established in 2007, the PIE Network is now comprised of over 80 advocacy organizations operating in 35 states and D.C., as well as 15 ‘National Partners’ consisting of think tanks and research centers that provide information for members (Ferrare, Galey, Carter-Stone, & Smith, 2017; McGuinn, 2012). The primary source of data for this study came from the three most recent publicly available policy briefs and reports retrieved from PIE members’ websites. We also collected content from members’ websites such as mission statements, advocacy summaries, and press releases, along with reports, policy briefs, and press releases gathered from the National Partners’ websites. All data were uploaded into NVivo software and the Discourse Network Analyzer (DNA, see Leifeld, 2013a, 2013b) for qualitative coding.

Methods. The discourse network analysis followed the principles of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and the constant comparative method (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). First, each report was coded for the types of evidence used (e.g., academic article, think tank brief) in relation to the policy topics advocated (e.g., accountability). We also coded instances in which PIE Network Members or their National Partners were cited. Second, matrices were exported from NVivo and DNA and uploaded to UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) for the social network analysis. In particular, we used two-mode network analysis to explore the centrality of the different sources of information that PIE members used to establish claims about education policy. Two-mode network graphs and correspondence analysis (Greenacre, 2007) were also used to explore variation in the types of evidence by the substantive topics being cited.

Results & Implications. The results of the discourse network analysis suggest a cohesive clustering among types of evidence and policy topics within the PIE Network. PIE members tended to reference their National Partners, other PIE members, and philanthropic foundations when advocating for dominant facets of contemporary education reform (e.g., school choice, teacher quality, college readiness). On the other hand, members tended to cite academic and governmental sources when referencing work related to less prominent features of education policy, such as inequality, racial diversity, and community-based schools. Notably, these distinct patterns of evidence-use varied across different coalitions of PIE members. The paper concludes by discussing the use of DNA as a tool for policy scholars to help inform the ways advocacy coalitions shape public perceptions about education policy.

Authors

• Joseph J. Ferrare, University of Kentucky

• Laura Carter-Stone, Vanderbilt University