Policy Advocacy, Implementation and Educational Inequities (PIE): A Critical Study of State Actors’ Influence on College Affordability at Public HBCUs

I. Reframing the Purpose of Site Selection (1⁄2 page)

Goal: Reintroduce your rationale for site selection using the logic of the transformative paradigm and multi-site case study methodology.

Instructions:

• Emphasize that site selection is grounded in a commitment to examining structural inequities in resource distribution and policy influence across regions with public HBCUs.
• Note that the selected states reflect variation in how coalitions of policy actors address or perpetuate affordability inequities.
• Reinforce that a multi-site case study enables comparative learning while honoring each state’s unique socio-political context.

Example phrase:
“Guided by a transformative paradigm, this study intentionally selects sites where disparities in college affordability reflect broader structural inequities—and where advocacy efforts by coalitions of policy actors have taken distinct forms.”

II. Thematic Affordability Framework Across States (1⁄2 page)

Goal: Establish cross-cutting themes that justify comparison across cases within the Advocacy Coalition Framework.

Instructions:

• Introduce 2–3 core dimensions for comparing affordability policy responses:
• Coalition Dynamics: Who is advocating for affordability? Are there formal or informal coalitions?
• Policy Instruments: Are affordability efforts framed through merit vs. need, reparative justice, or market-based logic?
• Structural Outcomes: How do state policies disrupt or reinforce inequities in affordability for public HBCUs?

Tip: You could organize this into a table aligning these themes across all six states.

III. State-Level Case Descriptions (1.5–2 pages)

Goal: Use brief analytic case vignettes to show why each state is a “critical site” in your multi-site case study.

Instructions: For each state, include:

1. Overview of public HBCUs and state policy landscape
2. Key affordability initiatives (or gaps), with attention to resource allocation
3. Evidence of coalition activity or lack thereof—who’s advocating, resisting, or implementing change?

Anchor each case in both your frameworks:

· Transformative paradigm: Highlight equity/exclusion.

· ACF: Point to belief systems or advocacy strategies present among policy actors.

IV. Cross-State Comparison and Site Logic (1 page)

Goal: Synthesize the value of comparative case selection to your theoretical and methodological approach.

Instructions:

• Explain how variation across the sites supports theory-building within the ACF.
• Discuss how a multi-site case design uncovers patterns within and across states—revealing both context-specific insights and transferable lessons.
• Reinforce that this approach aligns with your paradigm by illuminating systems of power across place.

Example phrase:
“Taken together, these states illustrate a spectrum of affordability politics—ranging from reparative equity models to exclusionary merit-based funding—allowing for a comparative analysis of how coalitions mobilize (or stall) in the face of structural inequities.”

V. Integration into Methods and Site Sections (1⁄2–1 page)

Goal: Revise the proposal’s “Geographic Focus” and “Methods” sections to reflect this richer justification.

Instructions:

• Update “Geographic Focus” to explicitly link each state to affordability trends, advocacy movements, and coalition activity.
• In your methods section, affirm that these cases were chosen not only for variation but for what they reveal about power, coalition dynamics, and structural inequity in policy.

Enhancements:

• Table or Matrix: Compare the six states across affordability initiatives, coalition activity, and policy instrument type.
• Appendix A: Add a 1–2 paragraph case note per state summarizing data sources, major policies, and relevant advocacy events.