Dataset Information

Accountability or Equity: Combining Topic Models and Qualitative Analysis to Examine Public Rhetoric about Performance-Based Funding.

ABSTRACT: Examining rhetoric is important to understanding educational policymaking. This study focuses on rhetoric on one educational policy, performance-based funding (PBF) for higher education. In contrast to previous research on PBF, we analyze rhetoric in both states that implemented the policy and those that opted out. We employ a sequential mixed-methods design combining topic modeling with qualitative analysis of newspapers. Findings indicate that rhetoric in states that implemented PBF aligned closely with neoliberalism. Rhetoric from non-implementer states focused on higher education agents and policy processes, and was more likely to highlight equity than rhetoric from implementer states. This study sheds light on policy innovation and diffusion by contrasting rhetoric around PBF between states that implemented the policy and those that held out.

SUBMITTER: Gandara D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11364350 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accountability or Equity: Combining Topic Models and Qualitative Analysis to Examine Public Rhetoric about Performance-Based Funding.

Gándara Denisa D Daenekindt Stijn S

Educational evaluation and policy analysis 20220411 4

Examining rhetoric is important to understanding educational policymaking. This study focuses on rhetoric on one educational policy, performance-based funding (PBF) for higher education. In contrast to previous research on PBF, we analyze rhetoric in both states that implemented the policy and those that opted out. We employ a sequential mixed-methods design combining topic modeling with qualitative analysis of newspapers. Findings indicate that rhetoric in states that implemented PBF aligned cl ...[more]

PMID: 39220759

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNearly 30 years post legalisation and introduction, midwifery is still not optimally integrated within the health system of Canada's largest province, Ontario. Funding models have been identified as one of the main barriers.MethodsUsing a constructivist perspective, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study to examine how antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum funding arrangements in Ontario impact midwifery integration. We conceptualized optimal 'integration' as circumstances in which midwives' knowledge, skills, and model of care are broadly respected and fully utilized, interprofessional collaboration and referral support the best possible care for patients, and midwives feel a sense of belonging within hospitals and the greater health system. We collected data through semi-structured telephone interviews with midwives, obstetricians, family physicians, and nurses. The data was examined using thematic analysis.ResultsWe interviewed 20 participants, including 5 obstetricians, 5 family physicians, 5 midwives, 4 nurses, and 1 policy expert. We found that while course-of-care-based midwifery funding is perceived to support high levels of midwifery client satisfaction and excellent clinical outcomes, it lacks flexibility. This limits opportunities for interprofessional collaboration and for midwives to use their knowledge and skills to respond to health system gaps. The physician fee-for-service funding model creates competition for births, has unintended consequences that limit midwives' scope and access to hospital privileges, and fails to appropriately compensate physician consultants, particularly as midwifery volumes grow. Siloing of midwifery funding from hospital funding further restricts innovative contributions from midwives to respond to community healthcare needs.ConclusionsSignificant policy changes, such as adequate remuneration for consultants, possibly including salary-based physician funding; flexibility to compensate midwives for care beyond the existing course of care model; and a clearly articulated health human resource plan for sexual and reproductive care are needed to improve midwifery integration.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest.ResultsOne way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources.ConclusionAggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care in Canada is the first point of entry for patients needing specialized services, the fundamental source of care for those living with chronic illness, and the main supplier of preventive services. Increased pressures on the system lead to changes such as an increased reliance on interdisciplinary teams, which are advocated to have numerous advantages. The functioning of teams largely depends on inter-professional relationships that can be supported or strained by the financial arrangements within teams. We assess which types of financial environments perpetuate and which reduce the challenge of medical dominance.MethodsUsing qualitative interview data from 19 interdisciplinary teams/networks in three Canadian provinces, as well as related policy documents, we develop a typology of financial environments along two dimensions, financial hierarchy and multiplicity of funding sources. A financial hierarchy is created when the incomes of some providers are a function of the incomes of other providers. A multiplicity of funding sources is created when team funding is provided by several funders and a team faces multiple lines of accountability.ResultsWe argue that medical dominance is perpetuated with higher degrees of financial hierarchy and higher degrees of multiplicity. We show that the financial environments created in the three provinces have not supported a reduction in medical dominance. The longstanding Community Health Centre model, however, displays the least financial hierarchy and the least multiplicity-an environment least fertile for medical dominance.ConclusionsThe functioning of interdisciplinary primary care teams can be negatively affected by the unique positioning of the medical profession. The financial environment created for teams is an important consideration in policy development, as it plays an important role in establishing inter-professional relationships. Policies that reduce financial hierarchies and funding multiplicities are optimal in this regard.

Dataset Information

Accountability or Equity: Combining Topic Models and Qualitative Analysis to Examine Public Rhetoric about Performance-Based Funding.

Publications

Accountability or Equity: Combining Topic Models and Qualitative Analysis to Examine Public Rhetoric about Performance-Based Funding.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets