| The purpose of this study was to explore the development and adoption of statewide higher education policy through a case study of the mission differentiation plan adopted by the State University System of Florida. This controversial plan placed each of the ten institutions into categories, based loosely on Carnegie Classifications, for the purposes of statewide planning. The research questions for this study included: (1) How is state higher education policy developed and adopted? (2) Who are the influentials in the development and adoption of state higher education policy? (3) What are the salient factors in the development and adoption of state higher education policy? (4) How does Lowi's (1964) arenas of power framework relate to the development and adoption of state higher education policy?; The primary method of data collection included focused interviews with policy actors. Secondary methods of data collection involved document review and archival record analysis. The researcher conducted qualitative and pattern-matching analyses, resulting in the following findings and conclusions: (1) The higher education policy process generally proceeds through the stages of agenda, formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation. However, these stages are not necessarily discrete or linear. Loops exist in the process, particularly when policies are considered in different political subsystems. The policy process is likely to be unique depending on the type of policy under consideration and the subsystem in which it originates. (2) Each political subsystem and type of policy has a unique power structure with its own hierarchy of influentials. Therefore, a one-dimensional ranking of policy actors is insufficient in analyzing relative influence. The relative influence of policy actors varies according to the arena in which they are operating. (3) A number of factors emerged as influential in the policy process, including: state features; state history of higher education; governance model; state revenues; state political culture; and politics. (4) Lowi's (1964) arenas of power framework has value for considering the general types of politics surrounding a particular policy but little predictive value in relation to the process. |
