The Effects of Risk, Beliefs, and Trust in Education Policy Networks: The Case of Autism and Special Education

Abstract

Resumen There are multiple theoretical accounts of how actors address problems of collective action in policy networks, but the two most prominent hypotheses are the risk and belief homophily hypotheses. The risk hypothesis claims that relational structures (e.g., bridging, bonding) depend on the benefits actors receive from uncooperative behavior, while the belief homophily hypothesis claims that relational ties form around shared policy beliefs. This study incorporates the case of autism and special education policy, a subsystem best characterized by Berardo and Scholz's (2010) conceptualization of a low‐risk environment, to test hypotheses about the influence of risk, policy beliefs, and trust on the formation on relational ties in education policy networks. Utilizing data from a 2016 network survey of public and private special education stakeholders in Virginia, results from exponential random graph models provide support for the effects of bridging structures, beliefs related to the medical model of disability, and social trust on strong (collaboration) and weak (information/advice) relational ties in policy networks. The findings reinforce the importance of using policy networks to understand how actors build connections across multiple jurisdictions and policy sectors to mitigate problems of coordination in policy decision making and implementation.

Patterns of Policy Networks at the Local Level in Germany

“…Because respondents are asked to remember their actions rather than assessing relationships based on general impressions, validity of data is expected to be higher compared to cases like ally networks (Weible & Sabatier, 2005). Finally, as both interactions are continuously applied in recent studies in policy analysis and public administration (Hegele, 2018; Parsons, 2020), this choice enhances the compatibility of results.…”

What Explains Collaboration in High and Low Conflict Contexts? Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks in Four Countries

“…These mixed results come mostly from singlecase studies on highly conflictual subsystems, and discussions of these findings in relation to other singlecase studies (Calanni et al, 2015; Parsons, 2018; Weible et al, 2018). This is certainly a valid and useful approach in policy studies, but comparative research is necessary to understand the relationship between contextual factors, such as the level of conflict in a policy subsystem, and the factors that are argued to drive collaboration.…”

“…Manifold studies in the public policy literature have developed hypotheses to investigate what explains collaboration in climate policy processes (e.g., Gronow, Wagner, & Ylä‐Anttila, 2020; Ingold & Fischer, 2014; P. M. Wagner & Ylä‐Anttila, 2018) and other policy domains (e.g., Parsons, 2018; Weible, Heikkila, Ingold, & Fischer, 2016). In this study, we focus on the significance of beliefs and influence as explanations for collaboration.…”

Reconceptualizing the Policy Subsystem: Integration with Complexity Theory and Social Network Analysis

“…6 Put briefly, these theories highlight patterns of collective action within broader systems involving networks of actors, institutions, and policy issues that frequently overlap (Lubell, 2013;Scott & Thomas, 2017). Of course, scholars have also utilized networks to extend ACF theory, especially with respect to the composition of coalitions and the costs of coordination therein (Fischer & Sciarini, 2016;Henry, Lubell, & McCoy, 2011;Parsons, 2018). Subsystems in a network perspective easily serve any of these theories because of their ability to represent multiple independent centers of decision making and the interactions between public and private actors-even across different stages of the policy process (Hayes & Scott, 2018;O'Toole, 1997;Ostrom, Tiebout, & Warren, 1961).…”