Student funding policy output trajectory: conceptualisation of change

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 3 Research Design

This chapter elaborates on the methodological choices made to address the research questions and hypotheses presented in chapters 1 and 2. The overarching research design was built on a case study framework. Case studies commonly consist of in-depth analysis of complex phenomena in one or a limited number of cases (Yin, 2014; Miles, 1994). This approach is particularly suitable for the proposed research as it poses how or why questions about a ‘contemporary set of events, over which [the] researcher has little or no control’ (Yin, 2014, p. 14). Case studies can also provide an ‘explanation of a sequence of events that produce a particular historical outcome in which key steps in the sequence are in turn explained with reference to theories or causal mechanisms’ (Bennett, 2004, p. 21). Hence, the benefit of a case study design is its ability to unfold causal insights into the student funding policy domain in a small-N study setting.
The case study approach allows a choice between single or multiple cases (Gerring, 2007; Yin, 2014). In this research the initial interest was in Finland as an international outlier with its tuition fee free provision and near universal student allowances (Table 2.1). The cross-country design was chosen in order to see the topic from a wider context and to provide a platform for examining similarities and differences in the cost-sharing patterns and policy process. For example Hall (2008) emphasizes how ‘increasing the number and diversity of the cases increases the investigator’s confidence that the causal process observed is not idiosyncratic to one of them’ (p. 315). Yet, there is a trade-off between the number of countries and the level of detail. This research aimed at providing an in-depth analysis of micro level developments over a twenty year time period in two policy programs and to explain the causes behind expansion, contraction and stability. Hence, drawing on two countries was deemed sufficient to keep the investigation feasible.
The choice of the second country was based on a strategic selection where the cases are chosen based on certain critical variables (Hillebrand, Kok, & Biemans, 2001). This kind of critical case selection is appropriate when the study does not aim at controlled comparisons between the countries but rather investigates casual processes or patterns in each case (George, 2005; Hall, 2003). In this research design ‘the results of individual case studies, each of which employs within-case analysis, can be compared drawing them together within a common theoretical framework without having to find two or more cases that are similar in every respect but one’ (George, 2005, p. 179). The selection of the second country was theoretically guided even though practical considerations were present19. The key requirement was a variation in the general state-student cost-sharing approach during the examination period, in other words a country where there was higher reliance on private responsibility than in the case of Finland. Moreover, a degree of control in three additional variables was important.
First, chapter 2 laid out how increased cost-sharing from state to students has been often explained by states’ financial pressures deriving from high overall participation rates. Hence, comparable participation level was critical in order to minimise participation related cost-sharing pressures so that the reasons for expansion/ contraction were not only due to low or high student numbers20. Second, as this research aimed to investigate how changes in economic conditions and partisan incumbency affected the cost-sharing direction, case countries had to demonstrate a degree of variation in these variables. Third, in order to apply the policy change propositions to the empirical evidence certain cost-sharing activity (i.e. at least occasional significant reforms) was necessary. On the basis of these criteria, a review of OECD’s data, other literature and a country specific examination was carried out to identify a countries which fulfilled these criteria (Davies et al., 2009; OECD, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Johnstone, 2003). New Zealand was identified as such a country and was thus selected as the second country21.
It was decided in this research to apply a long-term perspective, a perspective to which case studies are well fitted (e.g. Lawton, 2012; Skocpol, 2009). In its simplest form, the inclusion of a longer time period can help to overcome the issue of a too narrow perception and provide an explanation of how history matters. The long-term perspective is crucial for applying the theoretical perspective of path dependence, but a longer time frame has been also recommended for authors outside the historical institutionalism-tradition (Capano, 2009; Cashore & Howlett, 2007; Pierson, 1994; Sabatier & Cerych, 1986; True et al., 1999). For instance Capano (2009) argues that:
19 For practical reasons most of the primary sources had to be available in languages where the researcher had a high level of competency, restricting the selection predominantly to English and German speaking countries.
History means that policies are contextualized in a place, that they come from a past, that they have taken up time. Those not entirely convinced by historical-institutionalism and by the PDF [path dependence framework] should bear in mind the influence that historical processes and sequences have had on the policy development and change in question. From this point of view, the ‘‘configurational’’ logic of the framework of policy change should include an historical perspective (p, 27).
For the purposes of this research a sufficient time period was necessary for distinguishing between gradual and slow transformative reforms and for seeing how useful the multiple streams framework is in explaining expansion and contraction over a longer time perspective. The final examination period was set as 1989–2013/2014 for New Zealand and 1992–2013/2014 for Finland22. These early years witnessed significant changes or of attempts to achieve them. Reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s also formed structures which still exist at the end of the examination period in both Finland and New Zealand. The above years apply to the student policy trajectory, i.e. the policy outputs, but the analysis of the policy dynamics was extended to earlier decades in order to consider the wider historical context, to identify major prior policy changes and to see how long major policy ideas have remained on the policy agenda (Lampinen et al., 2003).
The decision to undertake a predominantly qualitative study was justified given that the research objective was to gain an in-depth understanding of policy development, rather than a more superficial description enabled by large samples and statistical analysis. However, a basic quantitative analysis was used to measure the magnitude of policy change. In this regard, the benefits of the case study design was that it allowed the employment of various methods and perspectives (Lin, 1998; Yin, 2014). Regarding ontological and epistemological views, the objective of this thesis was to systematically measure the reality of student funding trajectories and to shed light on significant student funding policy episodes. The positivist perspective was dominant: changes in student funding policies have taken place over the years and thus the policy trajectory constitutes a reality that can be observed objectively. Similarly, this thesis situates itself within the comparative historical analysis tradition which assumes that the reasons and causal patterns behind the observed development can be found out and objectively analysed by social scientific methods (Lange, 2013). The suitability of the positivist approach to the social and political sciences has been questioned among researchers in the post-positivist and interpretivist traditions (see for instance Della Porta & Keating, 2008; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). For example, from a postmodern perspective it has been argued that social laws cannot be identified because of the complexity of social relations — hence its epistemological premises differ from those outlined within the historical comparative tradition (Lange, 2013). Interpretivists emphasize how the world is socially constructed and that researcher’s values affect his/her perspectives, thus preventing research from being objective (e.g. Ritchie et al 2014; Della Porta & Keating, 2008). This criticism sometimes concludes that qualitative research cannot be positivist (Lin, 1998).
Nevertheless, as noted above the positivist approach need not be in conflict with qualitative research per se. In this research it was used to identify the dynamics that lead consistently to certain outputs or to reveal patterns that are typical of policy stasis, expansion or retrenchment (Lin, 1998). The argument from the interpretivist tradition claiming that explanations for certain historical events are always — to some extent — interpretations are acknowledged in the limitations of this thesis. Similarly, the interpretivist lens points out the importance of the context of the causalities and the process of how things happen, rather than just recording the causal paths (Della Porta & Keating, 2008; Lin, 1998) This type of approach which considers both process and context was part of the policy analysis process in this study.
Student funding policy output trajectory: conceptualisation of change
The first part of this thesis seeks to trace and analyse changes in the student funding programs’ generosity and cost-sharing arrangements in Finland and New Zealand between 1989/1992 and 2014. For this purpose I asked how change could best be operationalised and measured. These questions have been avoided in some of the academic research literature reviewed: for instance policy process theories do not clearly define quantitative or qualitative boundaries for incremental and large change or address their measurement (Capano, 2009; Hayes, 2006; Howlett & Cashore, 2009; Peters, 2012). This is a short-coming as the operationalization of change can affect our conclusions and thus the object of change and other chosen dimensions should be clearly defined (Capano, 2009). In this research the aim is to measure changes in student funding policy outputs’ (i.e. legislative changes) from the perspectives of generosity and state-student cost-sharing in the short-medium term context23. Both qualitative and quantitative methods can be used in investigating policy outputs (Green- Pedersen, 2007). A qualitative lens can distinguish between more and less important reforms or the nature of change. For instance Pierson (1994) identified two change dimensions: a) programmatic that stands for relatively common and often small adjustments in policies and b) systemic which portrays changes in the political and economic context, and which by doing so alter the likelihood of future program reforms. The latter can be ‘as important for the welfare state as changes in spending or program structure ‘within’ the welfare state itself’ (Pierson, 1994, p. 15). The difference between these two concepts is not the depth but the ‘locus’ of change (Van der Veen, Trommel, & De Vroom, 2000).
A frequently used reference in the welfare state literature is Peter Hall’s ‘Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State’ (1993), where Hall distinguishes between first-, second- and third-order reforms. First-order changes are simple adjustments in existing policy settings (e.g. adjustments in allowance rates), second-order changes denote to changes in policy instruments (e.g. funding mechanisms change from grants to loans) and third-level changes refers to paradigmatic changes that affect underlying goals and perceptions (e.g. the nature of education as a private or a public good) (Hall, 1993). Other frameworks for classifying the magnitude of change also exist, these include features like the tempo of change and making a distinction between ‘evolutionary’ and ‘revolutionary’ (Brown, 1983; i.e. Capano, 2009; Farnsworth & Irving, 2011; Hayes, 2006; Van De Ven & Poole, 1995) arrangements to achieve new purposes (Hacker, 2004; Streeck & Thelen, 2005). For instance, if the overall policy goal shifted from equal opportunities towards financial benefits to the state, the financial aid could be reformed to target support based on the acquired public benefits rather than students’ financial need.
These frameworks provide a basis for thinking about qualitative differences in policy change. Pierson and Hall’s work is important in highlighting that changes beyond the policy setting level can have significant impacts on future student funding cost-sharing direction and Thelen and Capone point out to the importance of understanding the temporal dimension. Lastly, the mechanisms of gradual transformative change can be viewed as a conceptual tool for an improved description of incremental change processes in the student funding domain.
Changes can be also assessed quantitatively. Much of the quantitative assessment of welfare state change has been based on aggregate, national level spending data in large N-comparative studies24. This type of approach, which often consists of the level of national social spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), has a number of limitations (Fernández, 2012; Kühner, 2007; Pierson, 2001, 1994; Starke 2008). Most importantly for our research design, the social expenditure lens cannot explain varying trends at a program level (Fernández, 2012; Green-Pedersen, 2004, 2007; Pierson, 1994, 2001). For instance Pierson (2001) argues that ‘focusing on a single policy area over time makes it possible to investigate the processes and outcomes of welfare state reform in greater detail’ (p. 11) Yet, similar problems are present when aggregate spending data are used in a single policy domain. For instance when pension spending is reviewed, the growing expenditure can reflect the population ageing rather than increased generosity (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Similarly, a comparison of student funding budgets can reveal which country has invested more as a percentage of their GDP, but rather than indicating increased/decreased generosity, changes may derive from growth in student numbers or a fall in GDP. Even though so called social right studies can account for these aspects by comparing fewer features across a large number of countries, they have been criticised for not addressing the generosity of programs or considering multi-directionality (Fernández, 2012; Green-Pedersen, 2004, 2007). For instance Kitschelt (2001) argues that any comparative study of social policy change would 24 Examples of studies relying on national spending data design are for instance Castles (2004) and Huber et al. (2001). …ideally rely on equivalent measures across a wide range of countries. Such measures would identify the extent of retrenchment in terms of the level of social policy programme expenditures per capita, criteria of eligibility for benefits, duration of benefits, and contributions necessary to qualify for entitlements (Kitschelt, 2001, p. 266).
Considering the research design, I chose a micro level ‘output measure’ approach which can capture multiple features of individual policy programs, e.g. the direction and magnitude of change and the affected rules (Clasen & Clegg, 2007; Green-Pedersen, 2007). For instance Gerven’s (2008) doctoral dissertation employed this approach when she examined the scope and direction of change in sickness, unemployment, disability and social assistance benefits in three European countries between 1980 and 2006. Her research showed that eligibility and entitlement rules have been constantly revised in all programs but that most reforms follow a certain national path (Gerven, 2008). Other examples of previous micro-level designs are Green-Pedersen’s (2002) research investigating changes in old-age pensions, unemployment benefits, and early retirement benefit/disability pensions in Denmark and The Netherlands between 1982 and 1998 and Classen and Clegg’s (2007) analysis of changes between 1981 and 2004 in conditionality rules in unemployment benefits in four European countries.
To conclude, in this research the investigation uses a micro-level perspective which focuses on, in Hall’s terms, first order changes affecting student funding programs’ generosity and student-state cost-sharing25. The exact operationalisation of change is discussed next.

Chapter 1 Introduction
Research design and theoretical lens
Research questions and significance
Thesis outline
Chapter 2 Theoretical and Contextual Framework
Explaining expansion and contraction in the student funding domain
Policy process theories and their application to the student funding policy domain
Theoretical framework and research hypotheses
Chapter 3 Research Design
Student funding policy output trajectory: conceptualisation of change
Data and operationalisation of program level change
Direction and scope of change
Student funding policy process: data and its analysis
Limitations of the study
Chapter 4 Student Funding Policy Trajectories
Student financial aid policy paths in Finland and New Zealand
Tuition fee policy paths in Finland and New Zealand
Economic and partisan incumbency variables and the cost-sharing direction
Economic context
Partisan incumbency
Chapter 5 Explaining Increased Generosity in Student Funding Policy
Unlikely expansion: student financial aid reform in Finland in 1992
Unlikely expansion (economic): student allowance reform in New Zealand in 1989
Likely expansion: Finnish student financial aid during 2005–2008
Increased generosity in student loans and housing supplements in 2005
Increased generosity in student allowance scheme in 2008
Likely expansion: student funding policies in New Zealand, 2000–2008
Explaining student funding policy expansion
Chapter 6 Explaining Decreased Generosity in Student Funding Policy
Unlikely contraction (partisan): tuition fee reform in New Zealand in 1990
Unlikely contraction: (partisan): cuts in Finnish student financial aid in 1995
Unlikely contraction (economic): tuition fee subsidies in New Zealand in 1995–1997 . 118
Unlikely contraction (economic): student housing support scheme in Finland in 2000 . 122
Likely contraction: minor cutbacks in the Finnish student financial aid in 2011
Likely contraction: retrenchment in New Zealand in 1992 and in 2011–2013
Student financial aid and the introduction of a student loan scheme in 1992
Contraction in the student financial aid scheme during 2011–2113
Explaining student funding policy contraction
Chapter 7 Explaining Stability in Student Funding Policy
Continuity in the Finnish tuition fee policy path: provision of free tuition
Continuity in the New Zealand tuition fee cost-sharing path
Continuity of the student loan interest write-off policy in New Zealand
Continuity of the market based, mortgage-type student loans in Finland
Explaining stability in student funding policy
Chapter 8 Synthesis of Findings
Economic context and partisan incumbency
MSF account of student funding expansion and contraction
Institutional structures and path dependence in the student funding policy process
Politics of expansion versus politics of contraction
Conclusions
Chapter 9 Towards an Improved Understanding of Higher Education
Cost-Sharing
Conceptualising and explaining higher education cost-sharing
Comparative conclusions
Limitations and contributions
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT