Agenda Setting and Policy Development, Higher Education

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_137-1

Synonyms

Definition

The capacity of an actor to define or influence issues on the public agenda by selecting issues seen as important or relevant or by shaping the way these issues are framed, discussed, and interpreted.

Introduction

Agenda setting is one of the key concepts in the critical or interpretative approaches in the study of policy development. Developed in response to positivist paradigms, which saw policies as largely technical solutions to objectively existing problems, critical or interpretive analysis emphasizes the constructed, contingent, and processual nature of policies, in particular the role of differently positioned actors in bringing specific issues to the fore (Fischer 2003). In this sense, the use of agenda setting in the research on higher education policy is fundamentally related to the questions of political power and influence and thus to the relationship between longer-term structural change...

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

References

  1. Bacevic, Jana. 2017. University under attack? Politics, contestation and agency beyond the neoliberal university. In The global university, ed. R. Barnett and M. Peters. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Brian D. Jones. 2009. Agendas and instability in American politics. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, Michael, James March, and Johan Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corbett, Anne. 2011. Ping pong: Competing leadership for reform in EU higher education 1998–2006. European Journal of Education 46 (1): 36–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronin, Ciaran. 1996. Bourdieu and Foucault on power and modernity. Philosophy and Social Criticism 22 (6): 55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunlop, Clare. 2016. Knowledge, epistemic communities, and agenda setting. In Handbook of public policy agenda setting, ed. N. Zahariadis, 273–294. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flaxman, Seth, Sharad Goel, and Justin Rao. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly 80: 298–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foucault, Michel. 2000. Power. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  11. Hay, Colin. 2002. Political analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jann, Werner, and Kai Wegrich. 2007. Theories of the policy cycle. In Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods, ed. F. Fischer, G.J. Miller, and M.S. Sidney, 43–62. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Kingdon, James. 2014. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. Pierson New International Edition. Harlow: Pierson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  14. Lukes, Stephen. 2005. Power: A radical view. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marginson, Simon, and Gary Rhoades. 2002. Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education 43 (3): 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCombs, Maxwell, and David L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2): 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCombs, Maxwell, Donald Shaw, and David Weaver. 2014. New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society 17 (6): 781–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McLendon, Michael K. 2003. State governance and reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, ed. J.C. Smart, 57–144. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mills, Michael R. 2007. Stories of politics and policy: Florida’s higher education governance reorganization. The Journal of Higher Education 78 (2): 162–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nokkala, Terhi, and Jana Bacevic. 2014. University autonomy, agenda setting and the construction of agency: The case of the European University Association in the European Higher Education Area. European Educational Research Journal 13 (6): 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robertson, Susan L., and Roger Dale. 2015. Towards a ‘critical cultural political economy’ account of the globalising of education. Globalisation, Education, Societies 13 (1): 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robertson, Susan L., and Janja Komljenovic. 2016. Non-state actors, and the advance of frontier higher education markets in the global south. Oxford Review of Education 42 (4): 594–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sell, Susan K., and Aseem Prakash. 2004. Using ideas strategically: The contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights. International Studies Quarterly 48 (1): 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, Karen. 2013. Critical discourse analysis and higher education research. In Theory and method in higher education research, ed. Jeroen Huisman and Malcolm Tight, 61–79. Buckingham: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sum, Ngai-Ling, and Bob Jessop. 2013. Towards a cultural political economy: Putting culture in its place in political economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wodak, Ruth, and Norman Fairclough. 2010. Recontextualizing European higher education policies: The cases of Austria and Romania. Critical Discourse Studies 7 (1): 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yagci, Yasemin. 2014. Setting policy agenda for the social dimension of the Bologna process. Higher Education Policy 27 (4): 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Finnish Institute for Educational ResearchUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Section editors and affiliations

  • Alberto Amaral
    • 1
  • António Magalhães
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.CIPESUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of Psychology and Education SciencesUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES)PortoPortugal