Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T05:29:25.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pennsylvania Policy Database Project: A Model for Comparative Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Joseph P. McLaughlin ,
Paul Wolfgang ,
J. Wesley Leckrone ,
Justin Gollob ,
Jason Bossie ,
Jay Jennings  and
Michelle J. Atherton
Joseph P. McLaughlin
Affiliation:
Temple University
Paul Wolfgang
Affiliation:
Temple University
J. Wesley Leckrone
Affiliation:
Widener University
Justin Gollob
Affiliation:
Mesa State College
Jason Bossie
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
Jay Jennings
Affiliation:
Temple University
Michelle J. Atherton
Affiliation:
Temple University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Temple University led a six-university effort that built a comprehensive public policy database for Pennsylvania, modeled on the national Policy Agendas Project created by Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones (1993). The Pennsylvania database (www.temple.edu/papolicy) enables users to integrate data from all three branches of government and the news media organized into 20 major and 249 minor policy topics since 1979. This article discusses the value of these data, their potential uses in state policy research, and the lessons learned over the four years invested in building the database. Our hope is that interested readers might undertake similar projects in their states to create a standardized national network of state policy databases.

Type
The Practical Researcher
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , Fall 2010 , pp. 320 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, Don. 2005. State Fiscal Outlooks from 2005 to 2013: Implications for Higher Education. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.Google Scholar
Herbst, Susan. 1998. Reading Public Opinion How Political Actors View the Democratic Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hillard, Dustin, Purpura, Stephen, and Wilkerson, John. 2007a. “An Active Learning Framework for Classifying Political Text.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 14–17, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Hillard, Dustin, Purpura, Stephen, and Wilkerson, John. 2007b. “Computer Assisted Topic Classification for Mixed Methods Social Research.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 4:31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, Thomas J., Orszag, Peter R., and Gunter, David L.. 2003. State Fiscal Constraints and Higher Education Funding: The Role of Medicaid and the Business Cycle (Discussion Paper Number 11). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Nicholson-Crotty, Sean, and Meier, Kenneth J.. 2002. “Size Doesn't Matter: In Defense of Single-State Studies.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2:411–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purpura, Stephen, and Hillard, Dustin. 2006. “Automated Classification of Congressional Legislation.” Presented at the Seventh Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, May 21–24, San Diego, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tandberg, David A. 2008. “The Politics of State Higher Education Funding.” Higher Education in Review 5:1–36.Google Scholar