An Examination of Policy in Practice: A Case Study of Inclusionary Internationalization

This article focuses on the perceptions of institutional practices and practices to nurture greater cross-cultural learning and inclusion by highlighting findings from an in-depth qualitative case study conducted at a prominent Canadian research university with a stellar reputation for recruiting and providing an inclusive environment for international students. Using a conceptual framework drawn from institutional diversity theory, this study examines perceptions by students, faculty, and staff of institutional practices and strategies aimed at nurturing inclusion for international students in order to glean insight about whether this institution is perceived to embody its espoused value of inclusive internationalization. The findings demonstrate that when internationalization is upheld as a core value of an institution, that value can be witnessed in the artefacts and rhetoric of an institution. While the rhetoric may influence the creation of additional services to support international students and faculty, it is limiting in its ability to produce inclusive environments, especially for populations of colour. The implications of these findings are discussed

Molecular analysis of pediatric brain tumors identifies microRNAs in pilocytic astrocytomas that target the MAPK and NF-kappa B pathways

RT-qPCR confirms (a) up-regulation of miR-34a, miR-146a, miR-542-3p and miR-503 in pilocytic astrocytomas. (b) low expression of miR-124*, miR-129 and miR-129* in pilocytic astrocytomas. Relative expression shown as Log2 fold change compared to normal adult cerebellum and frontal lobe (normalized to miR-423-3p). Data represent two technical replicates ± SD. (ZIP 516 kb

Cultivating Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education: The Role of Graduate School Preparation Programs

This study examined the contributions of graduate school preparation programs to the greater campus communities in which they are members by investigating the effects of three National Science Foundation’s Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate programs.  Using a snowball sample and semi-structured interview protocol, 20 directors and their staff were interviewed. Participants included the graduate program leader, their supervisors, and their staff, as well as faculty mentors who work with the programs. In-depth case study analyses facilitated through the use of Dedoose software. The findings provide evidence that contradicts arguments that graduate school preparation programs serve only a small number of students and are too costly to run. Instead, the findings highlight the value of these programs to non-program participants, students, staff, and faculty, and the ways in which the programs serve and contribute to their institutions’ academic and diversity goals

Accounting for Higher Education Accountability: Political Origins of State Performance Funding for Higher Education

Background/Context: Performance funding finances public higher education institutions based on outcomes such as retention, course and degree completion, and job placement rather than inputs such as enrollments. One of the mysteries of state performance funding for higher education is that despite great interest in it for over 30 years, only half of all states have ever adopted it. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: This study examines the political forces that have driven the development of performance funding in some states but not others. To do this, the authors draw on theories of policy origins such as the advocacy coalition framework, the policy entrepreneurship perspective, and policy diffusion theory. Research Design: This study contrasts the experiences of six states that established performance funding for higher education (Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington) and two that have not (California and Nevada). These states differ considerably in their performance funding programs, higher education governance arrangements, and political and socioeconomic characteristics. Data Collection and Analysis: Our study is qualitative, drawing on documentary records and extensive interviews with higher education officials, legislators and staff, governors and advisors, business leaders, and other actors. Findings and Results: Our study finds that many of the actors and motives cited by the prevailing perspective on the origins of performance funding did operate in the six states that have established performance funding, including state legislators (particularly Republicans), governors, and business people pursuing performance funding in the name of greater effectiveness and efficiency for higher education. However, the prevailing perspective misses the major role of state higher education coordinating boards and individual higher education institutions (particularly community colleges) that pursued performance funding to secure new funds in an era of greater tax resistance and criticism of higher education. Our findings further move beyond the prevailing explanation by examining how policy entrepreneurs mobilized support for performance funding by finding ideological common ground among different groups, identifying policies that those groups could support, and taking advantage of political openings to put performance funding onto the decision agenda of state elected officials. Conclusions and Recommendations: This examination of the origins of performance funding policies sheds light on factors that facilitate and frustrate the development of such policies. For example, our research highlights the important role of higher education opposition and the presence of certain political structures and political values in frustrating the development of performance funding

The Politics of Performance Funding in Eight States: Origins, Demise, and Change

Despite the popularity of performance funding among policymakers, only half of all states have ever created a performance funding system for higher education, and these performance funding systems have been surprisingly unstable. Nearly half of the states that established performance funding systems education eventually discontinued these systems. This report examines the political forces that shaped performance funding policies in eight states. The report begins by contrasting the experiences of six states that established performance funding (Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington) with two states that did not (California and Nevada). Second, the report analyzes the demise of performance funding in four states: Washington, Illinois, Missouri, and Florida. Finally, the report examines how and why two performance funding systems that have lasted to this day―in Tennessee and Florida―have changed over time. In conclusion, the report draws evidence-based recommendations for policymakers

Looking Inside the Black Box of Performance Funding for Higher Education: Policy Instruments, Outcomes, Obstacles, and Unintended Impacts

For several decades, policymakers have been concerned about increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of postsecondary institutions. In recent years, performance funding—which directly connects state funding to an institution’s performance on indicators such as student persistence, credit accrual, and college completion—has become a particularly attractive way of pursuing better college outcomes. But even as states have made an enormous investment in performance funding, troubling questions have been raised about whether performance funding has the effects intended and whether it also produces substantial negative side effects in the form of restrictions in access for underrepresented students and weakening of academic standards. This paper addresses these troubling questions by drawing on data richer than heretofore available. In addition to drawing on the existing body of research on performance funding, it reports data from a study of the implementation of performance funding in three leading states (Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee) and its impacts on three universities and three community colleges in each state

Envisioning Performance Funding Impacts: The Espoused Theories of Action for State Higher Education Performance Funding in Three States

This study reviews the theories of action that advocates of performance funding have espoused for higher education in three states that are leaders in performance funding: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The authors found that espoused theories of action are incompletely articulated, with significant gaps in the specification of policy instruments, desired institutional changes, and possible obstacles and unintended impacts. Performance funding is conceived largely as stimulating changes in institutional behavior and student outcomes by providing financial inducements and securing institutional buy-in. Less attention is paid to other policy instruments, such as providing information on institutional performance to the colleges and building up the capacity of institutions to engage in organizational learning and change. The authors of this paper argue that insufficiently articulating the theories of action for performance funding makes it less likely that it will be successful and avoid undue harm

Obstacles to the Effective Implementation of Performance Funding: A Multistate Cross-Case Analysis

This paper examines the major obstacles that hinder higher education institutions from responding effectively to the demands of performance funding 2.0 programs, in which performance funding is embedded in base state allocations to institutions rather than taking the form of a bonus. The authors interviewed administrators and faculty at nine community colleges and nine universities in three states with notable examples of performance funding 2.0 programs: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. Across the three states, public colleges and universities experienced the performance funding programs in different ways, but respondents predominantly indicated that student body composition, inappropriate performance funding measures, and insufficient institutional capacity most often made it difficult for their institutions to respond to performance funding. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution. The authors draw on policy implementation theory and principal-agent theory to explain why the local response to performance funding programs may deviate from the directions intended by policy framers, and they offer policy suggestions aimed at reducing the obstacles to performance funding implementation