A tale of two giants: Coalitions, policy -oriented learning and major change in state reading subsystems.
dc.contributor.author | Shepley, Thomas Victor | |
dc.contributor.advisor | Miskel, Cecil G. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-08-30T15:28:04Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-08-30T15:28:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2003 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:3106160 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/123949 | |
dc.description.abstract | For decades, policy scholars have searched for ways to generate a reliable understanding of how policymaking takes place. Even though a host of policy theories have been proposed, none has been able to fully explain the complex nature of policy creation in representative democracies. One promising generalized and testable policy theory, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), attempts to unify several approaches to policy analysis. Given the multidimensional aspect of reading policy, the burgeoning size of the reading policy community and the fact that different education policy decisions are made at different governmental levels, state reading policy subsystems are an excellent venue for testing the ACF. This study poses 10 hypotheses to assess how well the ACF is able to describe and explain the processes and changes in state reading policy. Relying on a structured case-study approach, this study focuses on elite policy actors in the states of California (n = 52) and Texas (n = 46). Using interview transcripts and archival documents, the beliefs and relationships of these actors are quantified. These two factors are then used to divide the subsystems' participants into coalitions. The statements of coalition members are then analyzed for themes that relate to the concepts proposed in the ACF. Analyses indicate support for seven hypotheses, qualified support for two and the rejection of one. Hypotheses regarding subsystem maturity, coalition boundaries, policy-oriented learning and major change all revealed evidence consistent with the ACF's predictions. Evidence concerning coalition formation as it is associated with the devil shift was not completely convincing but still important, as it partially explained the formation of extreme coalitions. The ACF's ability to explain intra-coalition variation in the subsystem failed. Taken as a whole, the findings of this study support the claim that the ACF is a useful way of interpreting policy change in a variety of subsystems, including that of state-level reading policy. Future researchers using similar methods should be careful to create questionnaires that fully ascribe to the ACF tenets and understand that the use of a rigorous case-study approach limits generalizabilty beyond the ACF theory itself. | |
dc.format.extent | 288 p. | |
dc.language | English | |
dc.language.iso | EN | |
dc.subject | Advocacy Coalition Framework | |
dc.subject | Change | |
dc.subject | Coalitions | |
dc.subject | Giants | |
dc.subject | Major | |
dc.subject | Policy-oriented Learning | |
dc.subject | Reading Subsystems | |
dc.subject | State | |
dc.subject | Tale | |
dc.subject | Two | |
dc.title | A tale of two giants: Coalitions, policy -oriented learning and major change in state reading subsystems. | |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.description.thesisdegreename | PhD | en_US |
dc.description.thesisdegreediscipline | Education | |
dc.description.thesisdegreediscipline | Educational administration | |
dc.description.thesisdegreediscipline | Public administration | |
dc.description.thesisdegreediscipline | Reading instruction | |
dc.description.thesisdegreediscipline | Social Sciences | |
dc.description.thesisdegreegrantor | University of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/123949/2/3106160.pdf | |
dc.owningcollname | Dissertations and Theses (Ph.D. and Master's) |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.