I recently attended the Transforming Evidence Network conference organized by the Pew Charitable Trusts. This was the inaugural meeting of a new international, interdisciplinary network of researchers, intermediaries, practitioners, and policymakers all interested in making, mobilizing and using research to inform policy and practice. It was striking how the findings across health, human services, education, justice, foreign policy, sustainability science, and international development on how to support research use were strikingly consistent. Research use is more about humans and organizations and less about specific disciplines and contexts.
Many people at the conference commented that they felt like they had finally found their community in those at the meeting. Everyone there played some role in trying to study research use, facilitate research use, or use research in policy or practice. To build community, the conference opened with everyone sharing their a-ha moments of how they came to be passionate about facilitating research use. These a-ha moments are ones that inspired us, transformed our thinking, and built connections. I thought I would share a few of my own a-ha moments that I bring with me as I rejoin the OPRE team as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Research, and Evaluation.
A-ha #1: Despite popular belief, research is used in policy
When I left academia to come to OPRE the first time I came with the belief many scientists have: that research was not used in policy. In my time as a social scientist my view changed completely to see all the ways research was used in policy. I saw research informing policy conversations on potential policy solutions. I saw research providing historical or theoretical context to a current issue. I saw research highlighting areas that might need new programs or additional technical assistance. I increasingly saw research and evaluation requirements appearing in legislation. Other research confirmed the use of research in policy such as Karen Bogenschneider’s work in state legislatures and Max Crowley’s work in the federal legislatures .
Around 2008 someone shared Nutley, Walter and Davies (2007) Using Evidence book with me. This book gave me a framework and language to name all the ways I saw research being used in policy. Weiss’ typology of research use provided language to think differently about research use. Research can be used to solve a specific problem (instrumental use) or can be mandated (imposed use) but research also can help people see a problem in a new way (conceptual use) or build trust among colleagues (relational use) or support a proposed strategy (tactical use). This knowledge fed into my second a-ha: the idea we could study science use and how we might improve research use in policy.
A-ha #2 We can empirically study science use (and apply those findings to support more research use)
From my time at the William T Grant Foundation, I had the opportunity to become immersed in the science of science use field. The former senior vice president for programs, Vivian Tseng, used to say how so much of what science use in policy relies on is post hoc anecdotes rather than prospective empirical investigation. Scientists who wanted science used often weren’t using science to inform efforts to improve research use! The Foundation decided to shift the lens to start supporting research on how to improve research use. I learned that to improve the chances of research being used the research needed to be relevant (timely to the issue and topically relevant), shared in the context of a trusted relationship, and embedded in existing routines to make it more likely to be used (Davies & Nutley ). I learned the field can develop interventions that can change the conditions to make it more likely research was used (Crowley et al ). I learned organizational context that supports learning and inquiry from leadership through communication channels and staff support is key to whether and how research is used (Farrell et al ). Boaz, Davies, Fraser and Nutley’s book What Works Now helped me see how we need to move away from individual models pushing research out to more systems models that build at infrastructure and organizational culture to support research use.
A-ha #3: The use of research is not neutral
Roger Pielke’s seminal book he describes an honest broker as a scientist who lays out multiple scientifically informed options in a neutral way to inform policy development. This characterization of the honest broker has been highlighted as important for whether science shared is seen as credible, trusted and ultimately used in policymaking . At the same time the conduct of research has not always been neutral. Research has applied deficit-based perspectives, engaged in extractive research practices, ignored inequitable power dynamics between researchers and research users, built theories on research with non-representative populations, decontextualized research findings from the current and former inequities that drive the results, and privileged some scientific voices and disciplines over others in policy settings. If the conduct of research isn’t always neutral, then the use of research needs a similar critical lens. My learning from scholars such as Janelle Scott, Jamila Michener David Kirkland (PDF), and Fabienne Doucet has sharpened my thinking to apply a more critical perspective to consider whose research is used, why it was used, and whose voice is heard related to research use in policy and practice.
All of these a-ha moments shape how I think about the work and inspire me to continue to advance the field. In future blog posts I hope to share additional ways these a-has and more shape my own thinking and the work we do. What are your a-ha moments on making, mobilizing and using research in policy and practice?
Lauren Supplee is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Research, and Evaluation at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).