| This project consists of three embedded case studies of systemic reform in Massachusetts public higher education, where an activist governing board took hold in 1995. Within a neo-institutional theoretical framework, it is argued that these attempts at systemic reform were generated from a highly legitimate metapolicy that established the theory of action from which all policies were developed and implemented. Interviews with over 20 key participants and examination of archival data reveal that even within institutions, governing boards and their staff act strategically by actively manipulating institutional elements in the environment and managing intraorganizational processes. It is concluded that the metapolicy consists of five core elements: system development, mission differentiation, student opportunity, concentration of talent, and managerialism. Each of these five elements was highly legitimate with policymakers and the public, and served to increase the profile and the credibility of the system, a great accomplishment in a state where public higher education has traditionally been treated with indifference and even hostility. This legitimacy, however, has obscured the degree to which some of these policies have negatively impacted student access for underrepresented groups. |
