As calls for evidence-based policymaking become increasingly common, qualitative research has much to offer the policy community. However, policymakers frequently evidence a preference for quantitative research. By discounting the importance of qualitative research in the policymaking process, resulting policies and their target populations miss out on the benefits that qualitative research uniquely offers.
The purpose of this study was to examine how qualitative research has been perceived and used in the US government’s rulemaking process for creating higher education regulations.
This qualitative case study included data from semi-structured interviews with 34 policy actors involved in higher education rulemaking, rulemaking documents, and research reports cited in several key higher education regulations.
Many policy actors viewed qualitative research favourably, but qualitative studies have seldom been cited in higher education rulemaking. Several respondents discussed validity concerns and some policymakers’ misunderstandings regarding qualitative methods. Moreover, storytelling can influence policy actors’ perspectives about the content of policies, and qualitative research was viewed as effective at identifying compelling stories. Thus, narratives derived from qualitative research may provide an opportunity for qualitative researchers to have their work considered in policymaking processes.
Qualitative research faces challenges with gaining visibility and influence in the development of regulatory policy. However, this study has shown that qualitative research has the potential to be both useful and persuasive to policymakers. Studies that discuss relevant stories may be particularly compelling.
Altheide, D.L. and Johnson, J.M. (2011) Reflections on interpretive adequacy in qualitative research, SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, vol 4, Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp 581–94.
Asen, R., Gurke, D., Solomon, R., Conners, P. and Gumm, E. (2011) ‘The research says’: definitions and uses of a key policy term in federal law and local school board deliberations, Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(4): 195–213.
Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan (2012) Memorandum Opinion, Civil Action 11–1314 (RC), D.D.C.
Belfield, C.R., Bowden, A.B. and Rodriguez, V. (2018) Evaluating regulatory impact assessments in education policy, American Journal of Evaluation, 40(3): 335–53.
Bowers, J. and Testa, P.F. (2019) Better government, better science: the promise of and challenges facing the evidence-informed policy movement, Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1): 521–42.
Bozeman, H., Mingo, M. and Hershey-Arista, M. (2017) Summary report for the 2017 gainful employment focus groups, report for the US department of education, Rockville, MD: Westat, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/summaryrpt2017gefocus317.pdf.
Carter, C.L. (2009) Consumer Protection in the States: A 50-state Report On Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Statutes, Report, Boston, MA: National Consumer Law Center, https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/report_50_states.pdf.
Clemens, R.F. and Tierney, W.G. (2017) The utility of qualitative research to inform public policy, in P.A. Pasque and V.M. Lechuga (eds) Qualitative Inquiry in Higher Education Organization and Policy Research, New York: Routledge, pp 27–47.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2018), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 4th edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Delgado, R. (1989) Storytelling for oppositionists and others: a plea for narrative, Michigan Law Review, 87(8): 2411–41.
Denzin, N.K. (2009) The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence, Qualitative Research, 9(2): 139–60.
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. and Giardina, M.D. (2006) Disciplining qualitative research, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6): 769–82.
Donmoyer, R. (2012a) Can qualitative researchers answer policymakers’ What-Works Question?, Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8): 662–73.
Donmoyer, R. (2012b) Two (very) different worlds: the cultures of policymaking and qualitative research, Qualitative Inquiry, 18(9): 798–807.
Dougherty, K.J. and Natow, R.S. (2020) Performance-based funding for higher education: how well does neoliberal theory capture neoliberal practice?, Higher Education, 80(3): 457–78.
Evans, D. (2003) Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions, Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12(1): 77–84.
Executive Order No. 12866, 1993 comp., Title 3 C.F.R. 638.
Fielding, N.G. (2020) Critical qualitative research and impact in the public sphere, Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2): 142–52.
Gibbs, G.R. (2018) Analyzing Qualitative Data, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gibton, D. (2016) Researching Education Policy, Public Policy, and Policymakers: Qualitative Methods and Ethical Issues, New York: Routledge.
Gray, G. and Jones, M.D. (2016) A qualitative narrative policy framework? Examining the policy narratives of US campaign finance regulatory reform, Public Policy Administration, 31(3): 193–220.
Gross, J.P., Cekic, O., Hossler, D. and Hillman, N. (2009) What matters in student loan default: a review of the research literature, Journal of Student Financial Aid, 39(1): 19–29.
Haynes, A., Rowbotham, S.J., Redman, S., Brennan, S., Williamson, A. and Moore, G. (2018) What can we learn from interventions that aim to increase policy-makers’ capacity to use research? A realist scoping review, Health Research Policy & Systems, 16(1): 31.
Henig, J. (2012) The politics of data use, Teachers College Record, 114(11): 1–32.
Herriott, R.E. and Firestone, W.A. (1983) Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing description and generalizability, Educational Researcher, 12(2): 14–19.
Kaplan, R.G., Riedy, R., Van Horne, K. and Penuel, W. (2019) Going on a statewide listening tour: involving education leaders in the process of research to enhance the practical value of qualitative research, Evidence & Policy, 15(2): 179–96.
Kerrigan, M.R. and Johnson, A.T. (2019) Qualitative approaches to policy research in education: contesting the evidence-based, neoliberal regime, American Behavioral Scientist, 63(3): 287–95.
Kerwin, C.M. and Furlong, S.R. (2011) Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy, 4th edn, Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Kugler, A. (2014) Labor market analysis and labor policymaking in the nation’s capital, ILR Review, 67(Suppl 3): 594–607.
Lather, P. (2004) This is your father’s paradigm: government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education, Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1): 15–34.
Lather, P. (2006) Foucauldian scientificity: rethinking the nexus of qualitative research and educational policy analysis, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6): 783–91.
Lee, H., Lindquist, J.D., and Acito, F. (1997) Managers’ evaluation of research design and its impact on the use of research: An experimental approach, Journal of Business Research, 39(3): 231–40.
Locock, L. and Boaz, A. (2019) Drawing straight lines along blurred boundaries: qualitative research, patient and public involvement in medical research, co-production and co-design, Evidence & Policy, 15(3): 409–21.
Lovell, M., Guthrie, J., Simpson, P. and Butler, T. (2018) Navigating the political landscape of Australian criminal justice reform: senior policy-makers on alternatives to incarceration, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 29(3): 227–41.
Lune, H. and Berg, B.L. (2017) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 9th edn, New York: Pearson.
Malterud, K. (2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines, The Lancet, 358(9280): 483–88.
Maxwell, J.A. (2004) Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education, Educational Researcher, 33(2): 3–11.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
McAleese, S. and Kilty, J.M. (2019) Stories matter: reaffirming the value of qualitative research, The Qualitative Report, 24(4): 822–45.
Merriam, S.B. and Tisdell, E.J. (2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. and Saldaña, J. (2019) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 4th edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
National Research Council (2012) Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Natow, R.S. (2017) Higher Education Rulemaking: The Politics of Creating Regulatory Policy, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Natow, R.S. (2020) Research utilization in higher education rulemaking: a multi-case study of research prevalence, sources, and barriers, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(5): 1–32.
Nutley, S.M., Walter, I. and Davies, H.T.O. (2007) Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services, Bristol: Policy Press.
Office of the Federal Register (2011) A Guide to the Rulemaking Process, www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf.
Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J. and Thomas, J. (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers, BMC Health Services Research, 14(1): 2.
Ospina, S.M., Esteve, M. and Lee, S. (2018) Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research, Public Administration Review, 78(4): 593–605.
Pelesh, M.L. (1994) Regulations under the higher education amendments of 1992: a case study in negotiated rulemaking, Law and Contemporary Problems, 57(4): 151–70.
Posti-Ahokas, H. (2013) Empathy-based stories capturing the voice of female secondary school students in Tanzania, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(10): 1277–92.
Postsecondary National Policy Institute (n.d.) Overview, https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/UpdatedPNPI_OnePager_Doc.pdf.
Program Integrity: Gainful Employment, Final Regulations (2014) 79 Fed. Reg. 64890.
Program Integrity: Gainful Employment, Final Regulations (2019) 84 Fed. Reg. 31392.
Purcell-Gates, V. (2000) The Role of Qualitative and Ethnographic Research in Educational Policy, Opinion paper, Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research, in A. Bryman and R.G. Burgess (eds) Analyzing Qualitative Data, New York: Routledge, pp 173–94.
Rivera, L.A. and Tilcsik, A. (2019) Scaling down inequality: rating scales, gender bias, and the architecture of evaluation, American Sociological Review, 84(2): 248–74.
Saiani, P.P. (2018) Doing sociology in the age of ‘evidence-based research’: scientific epistemology versus political dominance, The American Sociologist, 49(1): 80–97.
Saldaña, J. (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd edn, Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Sallee, M.W. and Flood, J.T. (2012) Using qualitative research to bridge research, policy, and practice, Theory Into Practice, 51(2): 137–44.
Savin-Baden, M. and Major, C.H. (2013) Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice, New York: Routledge.
Scott, G.A. (2011) Postsecondary Education: Student Outcomes Vary at For-Profit, Nonprofit, and Public Schools. Report to Congressional Requesters, Report no. GAO-12–143, Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office.
Sinkovics, R.R. and Alfoldi, E.A. (2012) Progressive focusing and trustworthiness in qualitative research, Management International Review, 52(6): 817–45.
Srivastava, P. and Hopwood, N. (2009) A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis, International Journal of Qualitative Research Methods, 8(1): 76–84.
Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Final Regulations (2015) 80 Fed. Reg. 67204.
Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program: Final Regulations (2016) 81 Fed. Reg. 75926.
Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Family Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Final Regulations (2019) 84 Fed. Reg. 49788.
Sunstein, C.R. (2013) The office of information and regulatory affairs: myths and realities, Harvard Law Review, 126(7): 1838–78.
Suri, H. (2011) Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis, Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2): 63–75.
Teacher Preparation Issues: Final Regulations (2016) 81 Fed. Reg. 75494.
Torgerson, D.J. and Torgerson, C.J. (2003) Avoiding bias in randomised controlled trials in educational research, British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(1): 36–45.
Torrance, H. (2008) Building confidence in qualitative research: engaging the demands of policy, Qualitative Inquiry, 14(4) 507–27.
Truong, D.H. (2000) Daubert and judicial review: how does an administrative agency distinguish valid science from junk science, Akron Law Review, 33(3): 365–90.
US Department of Education (2002) No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference, Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
US Department of Education (2003) Identifying and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence: A User Friendly Guide, Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Weiss, C.H. (1979) The many meanings of research utilization, Public Administration Review, 39(5): 426–31.
Weiss, C.H., Murphy-Graham, E. and Birkeland, S. (2005) An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E., American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1): 12–30.
Werner, A. (2004) A Guide to Implementation Research, Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program: Final Regulations (2014) 79 Fed. Reg. 63317.
May 2022 onwards | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 989 | 541 | 67 |
Full Text Views | 168 | 36 | 4 |
PDF Downloads | 162 | 41 | 5 |
Institutional librarians can find more information about free trials here