As frequently mentioned in this dissertation, this is a limited, exploratory study. Results cannot be generalized across broad groups with labels like “policy makers” or “legislators”. Despite the limited parameters of this dissertation research, I discovered intriguing results. The conceptual framework of selling, spinning, and shuffling held well across the different varieties of data examined by this research. Additionally, while policy actors and members of advocacy coalitions officially expressed the desire for a balanced approach which saw benefit in both liberal arts and STEM disciplines, the language and arguments they used coincided strongly with the linear equation.
In addition to having linear beliefs of a direct, proportional, predictable economic impact from promotion of STEM disciplines, the policy actors I surveyed and interviewed also leaned heavily toward the zero-sum animus toward liberal arts disciplines in favor of STEM ones. Unlike Governor Scott or Senator Gaetz, who are straight-forward and clear with their positions, many people I interviewed would say kind things about the importance of liberal arts study, but then follow it by dismissing its economic significance or lump it into broad, stereotypical groups like “French Literature”.
The quantitative survey data illustrate balanced positions, or a both/and perception of liberal arts and STEM study. This matches with the positions taken by federal figures like President Obama or state leaders like Georgia Governor Nathan Deal. STEM is promoted, and
79
perhaps slightly favored, but liberal arts are also seen as important. Perception data for both liberal arts aspects like “critical thinking” or the necessity of the K-12 STEM pipeline were robust scores between 5.0-6.0 on a 7-point Likert scale. Furthermore, survey items which asked for blunt opinions of the necessity of state interference with the curriculum at public universities, or diverting funding from liberal arts disciplines and giving that money to STEM departments, were soundly rejected by policy actors across demographic groups. Policy makers also rejected fears of being overtaken by China, along with the idea that STEM education was the most important issue facing the U.S. since the Space Race. The data show a loose relationship between fear of economic rivals and promotion of STEM disciplines. This would appear to reject the premise of zero-sum STEM stimulus, which uses Cold War-era rhetoric of falling behind to encourage STEM investment.
The qualitative data do not match the both/and balanced approach illustrated by the quantitative survey data. When given chances to speak in more detail about their feelings concerning STEM and liberal arts education, on free response survey items and semi-structured interviews, policy actors fall in line behind figures like Senator Gaetz and Governor Scott with either/or arguments. It is possible to warmly support and encourage liberal arts study, until discussing economic impact through education and STEM fields. When given the freedom to control discussion, leaders look for an adversary to place in competition with STEM. Like Scott and Gaetz, they pick the liberal arts for the other side of their either/or positions.
Perhaps the clearest data collected during this dissertation research are the press releases from the Florida Governor’s Office. By exploring a 6-month sample of press releases, I was able to determine the rhetorical strategies used to highlight and promote the positions taken by Governor Scott. Unlike other policy actors, the Governor is remarkably clear and consistent with
his message. Job growth and economic impact are stressed consistently, regardless of the subject of the news article. Whenever new job figures were released, STEM education was mentioned, 100% of the time. STEM was not alone in the Governor’s job-centered messaging. Jobs were interwoven into stories mentioning fishing licenses, the Everglades, Major League Baseball, and multiple other subjects.
The data collected during the course of this dissertation tell an intriguing story. Most policy actors are not as blunt as Senator Gaetz or Governor Scott. They do not openly disparage liberal arts study. Their survey responses demonstrate some respect for their value. Behind the survey data, there are indicators that their perceptions might be more sympathetic to the either/or, zero-sum attitudes common in the state. Furthermore, examination of the Governor’s press releases explains why such attitudes are beneficial. The review of the literature studied for this dissertation raised questions as to how policy makers “kept score” of items as abstract as economic impact through STEM education. The Governor’s press releases answered those questions. Business relocation or expansion, Department of Labor statistics, and most importantly, jobs, are used to justify the zero-sum game associated with STEM. The literature demonstrates that augmentations in any of those “scoreboard” indicators cannot be statistically tied to STEM investment at the expense of the liberal arts. However, in politics, perception is reality. By stating it consistently and clearly, Governor Scott has made STEM a central part of his success with job growth in the state. He was re-elected easily, and his motto has changed from “Let’s get to work” to “It’s working”.
I have divided the results of my research into three sections. My first section is centered on the Likert-scale survey data, which analyzed the perceptions policy actors and members of advocacy coalitions had of STEM and the liberal arts. My second section examines the data
81
gathered from free response questions on the survey and semi-structured interviews with participants. My third section examines the 6-month sample of press releases from Governor Scott’s office. The final section examines relationships between these items and offers conclusions from the data collected.