higher education in usa pdf

Policy Framing in Higher Education in the United States

• First Online: 13 May 2023

Cite this chapter

• Cecilia M. Orphan 16 &
• Casey McCoy-Simmons 16  

Part of the book series: Higher Education Dynamics ((HEDY,volume 60))

526 Accesses

This chapter situates policy framing in the context of higher education in the United States. First, the chapter overviews framing and frames as concepts of import to postsecondary policy making. Next, the chapter describes who in the U.S. engages in framing including interest groups, IPPOs, policy elites, the media, and social movements. To illuminate the role of framing and frames in U.S. postsecondary policy, and the diverse policy actors who frame, this chapter explores how the Truman Administration framed higher education’s purposes as compared with the Bush and Obama Administrations. In doing so, the chapter shows how the rise of neoliberal ideology as a governing rationality within the institutional environment shifted how policymakers frame higher education policy problems and solutions. The chapter also explores how framing and frames can both encourage change in the institutional environment while embedding new institutional norms and paths into policy and institutional practice. The chapter concludes by describing why framing matters in U.S. postsecondary policy while surfacing the contested nature of framing as a concept and theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adams, P. (2016). Education policy: Explaining, framing and forming. Journal of Education Policy, 31 (3), 290–307.

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-Imarah, A. A., & Shields, R. (2018) (2019) MOOCs disruptive innovation and the future of higher education: A conceptual analysis. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56 (3), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1443828

American Council on Education. (2015). https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Letter-Congress-SAFRRA.pdf

American Dreams Are Powered by College Completion. (n.d.). Complete College America. https://completecollege.org/

Anyon, J. (2009). Progressive social movements and educational equity. Educational Policy, 23 (1), 194–215.

Arum, R. (2010). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses . University of Chicago Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bacchi, C. (2009). The issue of intentionality in frame theory. In E. Lombardo, P. Meier, & M. Verloo (Eds.), The discursive politics of gender equality: Stretching, bending and policy-making (pp. 19–35). Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar  

Bell, D. (1980). Brown and the interest-convergence dilemma. In D. Bell (Ed.), Shades of Brown: New perspectives on school desegregation (pp. 90–106). Teachers College Press.

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 (1), 611–639.

Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1996). The manufactured crisis: Myths fraud and the attack on America’s public schools. NASSP Bulletin, 80 (576), 119–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659608057619

Berman, E. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.

Birkland, T. A. (2011). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policymaking (3rd ed.). M.E.

Blumenstyk, G. (2014). American higher education in crisis? Oxford University Press.

Borah, P. (2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61 (2), 246–263.

Bradbury, K., & Triest, R. K. (2016). Inequality and aggregate economic performance. Journal of Social Sciences, 2 (2), 178–201.

Bragg, D. D. (2014). A perfect storm? President Obama, the great recession, and community colleges. In E. M. Zahami-Gallaher (Ed.), The Obama administration and educational reform (pp. 93–118). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Brookings. (2020). Disruptive Innovations in Higher Education . https://www.brookings.edu/series/disruptive-innovations-in-higher-education/

Broucker, B., De Wit, K., Verhoeven, J. C., & Leišytė, L. (2019). Higher education system reform: An international comparison after twenty years of Bologna . Brill Sense.

Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2009). Who says what to whom: Why messengers and citizen beliefs matter in social policy framing. The Social Science Journal, 46 (1), 12–28.

Christensen, C., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education . Center for American Progress. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535182.pdf

Clay, K. L. (2019). ‘Despite the odds’: Unpacking the politics of black resilience neoliberalism. American Educational Research Journal, 56 (1), 75–110.

Complete College America. (2011). Time is the enemy . https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/time-is-the-enemy.pdf

Cook, C. (1998). Lobbying for higher education: How colleges and universities influence federal policy . Vanderbilt University Press.

Crazy Bull, C. (2015, May 2). An act of sovereignty: Governing tribal higher education. Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 26 (4). http://tribalcollegejournal.org/an-act-of-sovereignty-governing-tribal-higher-education/

de Alva, J. K. (2019). Is the university next door the way to upward mobility? American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/is-the-university-next-door-the-way-to-upward-mobility/

Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education, A report of the Commission Appointed by Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings . https://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf

Dharshing, S., Hille, S. L., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2017). The influence of political orientation on the strength and temporal persistence of policy framing effects. Ecological Economics, 142 , 295–305.

Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. The American Political Science Review, 98 (4), 671–686.

Erichsen, E. R., & Salajan F. D. (2014). A Comparative Analysis of E-Learning Policy Formulation in the European Union and the United States: Discursive Convergence and Divergence. Comparative Education Review, 58 (1), 135–165. https://doi.org/10.1086/674095

Gallup. (n.d.). Presidential approval ratings – Gallup historical statistics and trends. https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx

Gándara, D., & Ness, E. C. (2019). Ideological think tanks and the politics of college affordability in the states. The Journal of Higher Education, 27 .

Gardner, L. (2017, April 30). Public Regional Colleges never die. Can they be saved? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/public-regional-colleges-never-die-can-they-be-saved/ .

Gilbert, C. K., & Heller, D. E. (2013). Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of Higher Education, 84 (3), 417–443.

Giroux, H. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education . Haymarket Books.

Goldstein, R. A., & Beutel, A. R. (2009). “Soldier of democracy” or “enemy of the state?”: The rhetorical construction of teacher through no child left behind . Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7 (1), 276–300.

Hailu, M. F., & Sarubbi, M. (2019). Student resistance movements in higher education: An analysis of the depiction of black lives matter student protests in the media. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31 (9), 1108–1124.

Hammond, L., Adams, P., & Rubin, P. G. (2019). A rhetorical analysis of intermediary organization documents on college completion policy. Educational Policy, 36 (2), 377–406.

Hänggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2012). Frame construction and frame promotion (strategic framing choices). American Behavioral Scientist, 56 (3), 260–278.

Henig, J. R. (2009). Mayors, governors, and presidents: The new executives and the end of the educational exceptionalism. Peabody Journal of Education, 84 (3), 283–299.

Hillman, N. W. (2016). Why performance-based college funding doesn’t work . The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/why-performance-based-college-funding-doesnt-work/?session=1

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

Horn, M. B., & Kelly, A. P. (2015). Moving beyond college: Rethinking education regulation for an unbundled world . American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Moving-Beyond-College.pdf

Kavenagh, J., & Rich, M. D. (2018). Truth Decay: An initial exploration of the diminishing role of facts and analysis in American public life . RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html

Kozma, T., & Polonyi, T. (2004). Understanding education in Europe-East: Frames of interpretation and comparison. International Journal of Educational Development, 24 (5), 467–477.

La Londe, P. G., Brewer, T. J., & Lubienski, C. A. (2015). Teach for America and teach for all: Creating an intermediary organization network for global education reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23 (47).

Laderman, S., & Weeden, D. (2019). State higher education finance. State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. https://shef.sheeo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SHEEO_SHEF_FY19_Report.pdf .

Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11 (1), 7–24.

Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Getting real: The duration of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 61 (2011), 959–983.

Lederman, D., & Fain, P. (2017, January 19). The higher education president. InsideHigherEd . https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/01/19/assessing-president-obamas-far-reaching-impact-higher-education

Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28 (2), 131–144.

Marcus, J. (2014, September 8). College-rating proposal shines spotlight on powerful lobby. Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/college-rating-proposal-shines-spotlight-powerful-lobby/

Markwardt, D. (2012). From Sputnik to the Spellings Commission: The rhetoric of higher education reform. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation.] University of Arizona.

Marsicano, C. R., & Brooks, C. (2020). Professor Smith goes to Washington: Educational interest group lobbying 1998–2017. Educational Researcher, 49 (6), 448–453.

Massy, W. F. (2013). Stretching the higher education dollar: Initiatives for containing the cost of higher education. American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/-initiatives-for-containing-the-cost-of-higher-education_164922677149.pdf

Matthes, J. (2012). Framing politics: An integrative approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 56 (3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426324

McClure, K. (2018). Institutions of opportunity: Using presidents’ narratives to re-tell the story of public regional universities. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 3 , 117–134.

McCoy-Simmons, C., Orphan, C. M., & Gándara, D. (2022). Intermediary public policy organizations and the discursive evasion of systemic racism and racialized violence. Educational Policy, 0 (0). https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221120279

McDonald, L. (2013). In their own words: U.S. think tank “experts” and the framing of education policy debates. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 11 (3), 1–28.

Meyer, J. W., & Bromley, P. (2013). The worldwide expansion of ‘organization’. Sociological Theory, 31 (4), 366–389.

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.

Natow, R. S. (2016). From Capitol Hill to Dupont Circle and beyond: The influence of policy actors in the federal higher education rulemaking process. The Journal of Higher Education, 86 (3), 360–386.

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. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 1–49). Springer.

Ness, E. C., Rubin, P. G., & Hammond, L. (2020). Becoming a ‘game changer’: Complete College America’s role in U.S. higher education policy fields. Higher Education, 82 , 1–17.

Newfield, C. (2008). Unmaking the public university: The forty-year assault on the middle class . Harvard University Press.

O’Malley, B. (2019, January 23). MOOCs fail in their mission to disrupt higher education. University World News: The Global Window on Higher Education. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20190123080937857

Obama, B. (2009). Address to Joint Session of Congress . [Speech transcript.] The White House President Barack Obama. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-address-joint-session-congress

Orphan, C. M. (2018). Public purpose under pressure: Examining the effects of neoliberal policy on regional comprehensive universities. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22 (2), 59–102.

Orphan, C. M. (2020). Not all regional public universities are striving for prestige. New Directions for Higher Education, 2020 (120), 9–24.

Orphan, C. M., Gildersleeve, R. E., & Mills, A. P. (2020). State of rhetoric: Neoliberal discourses for education in state of the state addresses and gubernatorial press releases. Journal of Education Policy, 35 (3), 394–420.

Orphan, C. M., Laderman, S., & Gildersleeve, R. E. (2021). Advocates or honest brokers? Examining the higher education public policy agenda setting processes of intermediary organizations. The Review of Higher Education, 44 (3), 325–355.

Perna, L. W., Orosz, K., & Kent, C. (2019). The role and contribution of academic researchers in congressional hearings: A critical discourse analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 56 (1), 111–145.

Picciano, A. G., & Spring, J. (2012). The Great American Education-Industrial Complex: Ideology, Technology, and Profit . Routledge.

Rhoades, R. A., Saenz, V., & Carducci, R. (2005). Higher education reform as a social movement: The case of affirmative action. The Review of Higher Education, 28 (2), 191–220.

Rockman, B. A. (2012). The Obama presidency: Hope, change, and reality. Social Science Quarterly, 93 (5), 1065–1080.

Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties motivated reasoning and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72 (3), 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238161000006X

Saunders, D. (2007). The impact of neoliberalism on college students. Journal of College & Character, 8 (5), 1–9.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1975). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America . Cengage Learning.

Serrano-Velarde, K. (2015). Words into deeds: The use of framing strategy in EU higher education policy. Critical Policy Studies, 9 (1), 41–57.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education . Johns Hopkins University Press.

St. John, E. P., Daun-Barnett, N., & Moronski-Chapman, K. M. (2018). Public policy and higher education: Reframing strategies for preparation, access, and success . Routledge.

Stenersen, C. R., & Prøitz, T. S. (2020). Just a buzzword? The use of concepts and ideas in educational governance. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , 1–15.

Tandberg, D. A. (2010). Politics, interest groups and state funding of public higher education. Research in Higher Education, 51 , 416–450.

The Truman Commission. (1947). Higher Education for Democracy: A report of the President’s Commission on Higher Education . The White House.

Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2 , 369–404.

Thelin, J. R. (2019). A history of American higher education (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Tomlinson, M. (2018). Conceptions of the value of higher education in a measured market. Higher Education, 75 , 711–727.

Tompkins-Stange, M. E. (2016). Policy patrons: Philanthropy, education reform, and the politics of influence . Harvard Education Press.

van Hulst, M., & Yanow, D. (2016). From policy “frames” to “framing”. American Review of Public Administration, 46 (1), 92–112.

Welner, K. G. (2011). Free-market think tanks and the marketing of education policy. Dissent, 58 (2), 39–43.

Young Invincibles. (n.d.). https://younginvincibles.org/

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA

Cecilia M. Orphan & Casey McCoy-Simmons

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cecilia M. Orphan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Jens Jungblut

Université du Québec, Rimouski, QC, Canada

Martin Maltais

Louise McBee Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Erik C. Ness

Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

Deanna Rexe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Orphan, C.M., McCoy-Simmons, C. (2023). Policy Framing in Higher Education in the United States. In: Jungblut, J., Maltais, M., Ness, E.C., Rexe, D. (eds) Comparative Higher Education Politics . Higher Education Dynamics, vol 60. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25867-1_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25867-1_11

Published : 13 May 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-25866-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-25867-1

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Today’s Students Caret Left
• Today’s Institutions Caret Left
• Today’s Credentials Caret Left
• Ending Racial Injustice Caret Left
• Today's Student at a Glance
• Students of Color
• Financially Stressed Students
• First-Generation Students
• Working Adults
• Community Colleges
• Public Universities
• Minority-Serving Institutions
• College Affordability
• Bachelor’s Degrees
• Associate Degrees
• Workforce Training
• Quality in Higher Learning
• Disparities in Higher Learning
• Our Journey Toward Racial Justice
• How to Talk about Education and Race
• Education Levels Nationally Caret Left
• Public Policy
• Lumina Data & Research
• Lumina Impact Ventures Caret Left
• A Stronger Nation Data Report
• Investment Inquiry
• Lumina News and Blog
• Focus Magazine
• Photojournalism
• Daily Headlines
• State Strategy Labs Caret Left
• Student Supports Caret Left
• Local Talent Handbook
• Apply for Technical Assistance
• Technical Assistance FAQ
• About Strategy Labs
• Beyond Financial Aid
• History of Federal Aid
• Borrowers of Color
• Tuition Reimbursement
• I Want That Job!
• Our People Caret Left
• Strategic Plan
• Grants Caret Left
• Contact Us Caret Left
• Civic Leadership
• Lumina Disclosures
• Board of Directors
• President and CEO
• Our Stories
• Grantee FAQ
• Grants Database
• Your Experience with Lumina’s Grant Process
• Media Outreach
• Careers at Lumina
• Creative Commons
• Brand Guidelines

The State of Higher Education 2024

A valuable, but obstructed path to great jobs and lives.

The 2024 State of Higher Education study includes responses from over 14,000 U.S. adults aged 18 to 59 without a college degree

Since 2020, Lumina Foundation and Gallup have partnered to produce the State of Higher Education study, an annual survey of thousands of U.S. adults without a college degree. Each year, Lumina and Gallup measure their attitudes toward education beyond high school, interest in pursuing a degree or credential, the barriers they face to enrolling or completion, and the experiences currently enrolled students report having in their programs.

Critical findings from the 2024 State of Higher Education study include:

• Nearly all adults without a college degree say at least one type of credential is “extremely” or “very” valuable.
• Career outcomes — such as earning a raise, promotion or a more fulfilling role — are the primary motivators for pursuing higher education.
• Meanwhile, the primary barriers to enrollment are cost and a lack of financial aid.
• More than one in three currently enrolled students have considered stopping out of their degree or credential program within the last six months.
• About one in six currently enrolled students say they have at least occasionally felt disrespected, discriminated against or unsafe in their program.

Related Resources

• Insights to Support Adult Learners at Community Colleges
• Fewer Young Men Are in College, Especially at Four-Year Schools
• Ending Unfunded Mandates in Higher Education

Brought to you by:

Ballard Power Systems in 2024: What Is Next?

By: Jing Li, Daniel Shapiro

Ballard Power Systems Inc. (Ballard) was a pioneer and world leader in hydrogen fuel cell power system development and commercialization, employing over 1,100 employees worldwide, with operations in…

• Length: 21 page(s)
• Publication Date: Feb 12, 2024
• Discipline: International Business
• Product #: W34209-PDF-ENG

What's included:

• Teaching Note
• Educator Copy

$4.95 per student

degree granting course

$8.95 per student

non-degree granting course

Get access to this material, plus much more with a free Educator Account:

• Access to world-famous HBS cases
• Up to 60% off materials for your students
• Resources for teaching online
• Tips and reviews from other Educators

Already registered? Sign in

• Student Registration
• Non-Academic Registration
• Included Materials

Ballard Power Systems Inc. (Ballard) was a pioneer and world leader in hydrogen fuel cell power system development and commercialization, employing over 1,100 employees worldwide, with operations in China, Europe, and North America. However, despite its strong revenue growth, Ballard had failed to report positive operating income since 1993. At the end of 2022, a new round of government support for green technologies had the potential to change things for Ballard. The company now faced the question of whether to expand its operations in China, previously its major market, or shift its focus more toward North America and Europe. Factors to consider included geopolitical tensions and government funding. What steps should Ballard take next?

Jing Li is affiliated with Simon Fraser University; Daniel Shapiro is affiliated with Simon Fraser University

Learning Objectives

The case is suitable for graduate, executive, and advanced undergraduate-level courses dealing with climate change, energy transition, geopolitics, and international strategy. Students will have the opportunity to do the following: Analyze the main strategic challenges and opportunities in the global market for small- to medium-sized cleantech companies like Ballard. Examine the possible location strategies for a firm like Ballard in a world where energy transition and hydrogen promotion were priorities for many countries. Understand the increased importance of geopolitics and its impact on corporations that planned to conduct businesses in countries that had geopolitical tensions with each other. Understand the potential role of hydrogen-based technologies in supporting the energy transition.

Feb 12, 2024

Discipline:

International Business

Geographies:

Canada, China, Germany, United States

Ivey Publishing

W34209-PDF-ENG

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .