Promoting and Limiting Voice: The Influence of Web-based Platforms on Public Policy Discourse

The focus on previously silenced voices within urban communities is a theme of this collection of manuscripts. The authors build on the discussion of urbanicity put forth by Milner and Lomotey (2014), wherein they posit that heretofore little definitive discussion has been put forth describing and conceptualizing the concept of urban. The contributors to this special issue delve into an important area not previously explored to this degree: the impact of the Internet on public discourse on public policy in urban centers.

The Internet, through a variety of communication platforms including social media, blogs, podcasts, and live-streaming, for example, continues to provide increased access and opportunity for digital participation in public discourse surrounding public policy (Supovitz et al., 2015). Although an increase in the number and diversity of voices seems favorable to democracy in general and public policy specifically, researchers are finding barriers to digital access, digital literacy, and digital inclusion (Jaeger et al., 2012) which limit the public’s ability to reach and influence policy actors. Still, researchers have witnessed some digital spaces as inclusive of voices that otherwise would have been excluded (Fraser, 1990) including—and perhaps particularly—those within and representing urban communities.

As the Internet’s communication platforms expand and evolve, so too must our understanding of the ways in which these platforms operate including their strengths and limitations for fostering digital access, digital literacy, and digital inclusion toward a truly representative public discourse—a discourse that influences public policy including, and especially, education policy to advance the interests of urban communities. The four articles in this special issue do just that, contributing to our growing understanding in unique and substantive ways.

In the first article, Do State Boards of Education Offer an Avenue for Public Voice?

Young, VanGronigen, Rodriguez, Tmimi, and McCrory (2021) question the public’s digital access to (and engagement with) one of our most powerful education policy actors: State Boards of Education (SBOE). “These education policy actors are located in a critical nexus between the public and government, providing an opportunity for citizens of the state to influence the direction and governance of public schools (Young et al., 2019).” Young et al. leaned on the criteria of the Open Government Maturity Model (OGMM) to critically examine 47 SBOE websites (“electronic public faces”) against the veracity of the assumption that e-government platforms (e.g., email, listservs, social media, online chat, and discussion boards) provide citizens with opportunities to engage their SBOE. In their analysis, these scholars discovered that most SBOE web-sites operate at OGMM’s lower criteria levels for openness and access, with slightly higher levels (for website e-accessibility) in states with capitals in urbanized areas. Their discussion posits possible reasons for sub-par accessibility, identifies critical areas for future research, and calls upon e-governments to recognize that digital platforms alone do not ensure public engagement. This article left us wondering: To what extent are SBOEs and their e-government platform designers critically examining the degree of public access and opportunity? Might the low levels of access reported in this study suggest a paucity of concern for public engagement in education policy discourse by SBOEs? This study makes a compelling case for deeper exploration, as well as, the identification and utilization of metrics like the Open Government Maturity Model for holding public agencies accountable.

In the second article, E-Advocacy in the Information Market: How Social Media Platforms Distribute Evidence on Charter Schools, Castillo, Goel La Londe, Owens, Scott, DeBray, and Lubienski (2021) explore the use of urban education policy blogs by individual, independent, and intermediary organizations (e.g., foundations, think tanks, advocacy and reform networks, and charter school industry groups) to promote incentivist education policies (e.g., charter schools, opportunity scholarships/vouchers, and merit-pay for teachers). They discover minimal recognition/utilization of peer-reviewed research in favor of alternative sources that narrate support for individual agendas. This presents a potential problem of both digital access and digital inclusion given that peer-reviewed research findings are considered a trustworthy conduit between citizen voices (study participants) and policymakers. In addition, Scott and Trujillo’s work also helps us to better understand the characteristics of education policy blogs, their authors (bloggers), and their networks, with an exploration of two defined purposes: journalism and activism.

In our third piece, A Digital Ethnography of Teach for America: Analysis of Counternarrative from the Truth for America Podcast, Vasquez-Heilig, Brewer, Kim, and Sanchez (2021) provide the first digital ethnography in education policy—conducting a qualitative analysis through digital ethnography of the education policy podcast, Truth for America. This podcast gives voice to those having lived experiences with Teach for America (TFA), but whose accounts are generally excluded from the “dominant, manufactured, positive” narrative that reaches and ultimately influences urban policymakers. This counternarrative, which provides a fuller, more complex historical account and constructive critique of the hegemonic discourse, is captured as qualitative data revealing critical problems within TFA (e.g., educator preparation, pedagogical practice, race and diversity, funding practices, and political power) in addition to deep concern for the consequences associated with sharing negative TFA experiences publicly.

The completion and publication of this study serves as a bridge between the “subaltern counterpublic . . . where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses, which in turn permit them to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs” (Fraser, 1990, p. 67) and the dominant, often exclusionary space for discourse. Not only have Heilig and colleagues provided evidentiary considerations for policy actors that are inclusive of typically marginalized voices—they have carried those voices from the space of civic participation to the space of civic influence for urban contexts and beyond.

In the fourth and final article, Writing Toward Justice: Youth Speculative Civic Literacies in Online Policy Discourse, Antero Garcia and Nicole Mirra (2021) ask us to consider how teachers might build the capacity of urban youth to civically engage via digital platforms that include mechanisms for policy discourse participation, stating: “The civic literacies we cultivate in classrooms guides their actions as civic agents of change.” These authors explore the harmful reliance on traditional civic literacies and create a framework for applying the contemporary principles of Afrofuturism (Dery, 1994; Womack, 2013) and participatory culture (Jenkins et al., 2006) to civic literacy pedagogy. This new paradigm calls for a “speculative civic literacies” approach that creates space for student contestation and imagination. Through an analysis of two case studies, the authors illustrate how two speculative, digital, civic literacies are enacted, learned, and understood—potentially driving “an aesthetic and political movement toward liberation.” These web-based pedagogies transgress participatory barriers, showing urban students that they can indeed participate in public policy discourse (digital access) while also increasing their knowledge of how to do so (digital literacy) through experiential learning. Of equal significance, these innovative practices foster digital inclusion by centering the voices of historically (and presently) marginalized groups.

Our country’s public institutions (e.g., education, healthcare, and housing) do not sufficiently serve and often do irreparable harm to people in urban communities. These institutions are the embodiment of public policies that are influenced by an exclusionary discourse—one that limits the public’s ability to reach and influence policy actors. Although our journey toward a robust, representative discourse is in its infancy, these articles expand our understanding of the ways in which certain web-based platforms might be navigated to move us farther along the path.

Hopefully, the insights shared herein will benefit the ongoing discussion of urban schools and communities and contribute to addressing the “identity crisis in urban education’ that Milner and Lomotey discuss (Milner & Lomotey, 2014, p. xvi). More particularly, perhaps this work will aid us in addressing what Milner and Lomotey (2014) refer to as the definitional gap and the policy gap in urban education. That is, this work has the potential to move our discussion along with regard to what urban is and also aid us in furthering the dialog on this topic among practitioners, policymakers, and researchers.

We close this introduction expressing our tremendous appreciation for the individuals who provided thoughtful, critical, insightful, and valuable reviews of earlier drafts of the articles included in this special issue: Leslie Finger, University of North Texas; David Garcia, Arizona State University; Kerry Kretchmar, Carroll University; Ellen Middaugh, San Jose State University; Katerina Payne, University of Texas-Austin; William Tate, University of South Carolina; Barbara Torre Veltri, Northern Arizona University; and Kevin G. Welner, University of Colorado.