Connecting Research and Policymaking: Implications for Theory and Practice from the Family Impact Seminars

Connecting Research and Policymaking: Implications for Theory and Practice from the Family Impact Seminars* This paper addresses a conundrum that merits scholarly attention-why social scientists' ability to generate high quality research has outpaced their ability to disseminate research into the policymaking process. The paper describes Family Impact Seminars, a series of seminars, briefing reports, and follow-up activities that provide up-to-date, solution-oriented information to state policymakers. In support of the proposed "three-communities" theory, the utilization of research in policymaking appears to depend upon several pragmatic practices and procedures, ten which are detailed in the paper. Key Words: Family Impact Seminars, family policy, two-communities theory This paper stems from the premise that ideas are powerful political tools (Smith, 1991) and that research produces policy-relevant ideas. Yet with a couple notable exceptions, the history of the utilization of social science knowledge in the past 50 years yields few examples of research being used to inform policymaking (DeLeon, 1996; Strickland, 1996). This underutilization, which has defied explanation for half a century, is particularly compelling now given the convergence of three forces: the demand from policymakers for high quality research to guide their decisions (Miller, 1996; Strickland), a supply of increasingly sophisticated research, and social scientists' growing interest in applying research outside the walls of academia (Zigler, 1998). Why has social scientists' ability to generate high quality research outpaced their ability to disseminate research into the policymaking process? This conundrum merits attention now, when the climate is receptive and the words "research shows" attract the attention of policymakers (Farley, 1996; Melton, 1995; Strickland), many of whom were educated in universities (Zigler). We describe one technology for disseminating research, the state Family Impact Seminars, an ongoing series of seminars, briefing reports, and follow-up activities designed to increase the utilization of research in policymaking. Modeled after the Family Impact Seminar series for federal policymakers (Ooms, 1995), the state seminars provide up-to-date, solution-oriented research on current issues and promote family well-being as a criterion for policymaking, just as economic and environmental impacts are routinely considered in policy debate. The Family Impact Seminar approach may be particularly germane to family scholars because families are central to effective programs and policies (Bogenschneider, in press) yet, unfortunately, of only marginal interest to the disciplines that traditionally influence policy such as economics, law, and political science. For example, public policy texts rarely include an entry for child or family policy in their table of contents (Huston, 1994), and few serious sustained efforts disseminate research on child and family issues (see Zigler, 1998, for exceptions). Policymakers do not have ready access to the growing body of research about families nor the staff or time to gather all the relevant data on the complex issues that confront them (State Legislative Leaders Foundation, 1995). As a result, policymakers often rely on information from lobbyists and special interest groups (Hahn, 1987), which may be fragmented, parochial, biased, and less forthcoming on family issues. The leaders of state legislatures feel unfamiliar with how children and families are faring in their districts and uninformed about the effectiveness of family policies and programs. Also, they are generally unaware of grassroots groups that advocate on behalf of children and families, and are seldom contacted by constituents on child and family issues (State Legislative Leaders Foundation). Developing technologies for disseminating research on families and for promoting families as the unit of policy analysis may be an idea whose time has come. …

[1]  S. Rockwell Taking a Stand: Extension and Public Policy Issues. , 1984 .

[2]  T. Ooms The Necessity of a Family Perspective , 1984 .

[3]  P. Moen,et al.  Families and Social Policy , 1987 .

[4]  J. J. Gallagher Emergence of Policy Studies and Policy Institutes. , 1990 .

[5]  David R. Mayhew Congress: The Electoral Connection , 1975 .

[6]  Urgent Message: Families Crucial to School Reform. , 1997 .

[7]  K. Bogenschneider Roles for Professionals in Building Family Policy: A Case Study of State Family Impact Seminars. , 1995 .

[8]  E. Werner,et al.  The children of Kauai: resiliency and recovery in adolescence and adulthood. , 1992, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[9]  T. Strickland Moving psychology toward (self) recognition as a public resource: The views of a Congressman psychologist. , 1996 .

[10]  R. Mccall The Concept and Practice of Education, Research, and Public Service in University Psychology Departments. , 1996 .

[11]  D. Seeley Education Through Partnership , 1985 .

[12]  Allen Tough,et al.  The adult's learning projects , 1979 .

[13]  R. Arnold The logic of congressional action , 1990 .

[14]  J. Smith The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks And The Rise Of The New Policy Elite , 1990 .

[15]  David A. Riley USING LOCAL RESEARCH TO CHANGE 100 COMMUNITIES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES , 1997 .

[16]  J. Smith,et al.  The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite , 1990 .

[17]  Paul‐Albert N. Emoungu Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged. , 1988 .

[18]  Henry J. Aaron,et al.  Politics and the Professors: The Great Society in Perspective , 1978 .

[19]  John W. Kingdon Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[20]  E. Boyer Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate , 1990 .

[21]  F. Farley,et al.  From the heart. 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association: Presidential address (1994, Los Angeles, California). , 1996 .

[22]  E. Zigler A place of value for applied and policy studies , 1998 .

[23]  S. Preister,et al.  A Strategy for Strengthening Families: Using Family Criteria in Policymaking and Program Evaluation , 1989 .

[24]  A. Huston Children in Poverty: Designing Research to Affect Policy , 1994 .

[25]  Nathan Caplan,et al.  The use of social science knowledge in policy decisions at the national level , 1975 .

[26]  P. Deleon,et al.  Psychology and public policy : balancing public service and professional need , 1996 .

[27]  James B. Rule,et al.  Insight and social betterment: A preface to applied social science , 1979 .

[28]  C. Nelson,et al.  The Utilization of Social Science Information by Policymakers , 1987 .

[29]  H. Wilensky,et al.  Social science and the public agenda: reflections on the relation of knowledge to policy in the United States and abroad. , 1997, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

[30]  S. Steinmetz,et al.  Handbook of marriage and the family , 1987 .

[31]  Ernest A. Lynton,et al.  New Priorities for the University , 1988 .

[32]  Cheryl D. Hayes Making policies for children : a study of the federal process , 1982 .

[33]  Yvonne A. Unrau Expanding the Role of Program Evaluation in Social Welfare Policy Analysis , 1993 .

[34]  T. Booth,et al.  Developing policy research , 1988 .

[35]  S. Brooks,et al.  Social Scientists, Policy, and the State: , 1990 .

[36]  Bruce Bimber,et al.  The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment , 1996 .

[37]  William M. Sullivan,et al.  Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life , 1985 .

[38]  P. Deleon,et al.  How to influence public policy: A blueprint for activism. , 1982 .

[39]  Irving Louis Horowitz,et al.  The Use and abuse of social science , 1971 .

[40]  Martin Bulmer,et al.  Social Science and Social Policy , 2021 .

[41]  C. Weiss,et al.  Social science research and decision-making , 1980 .

[42]  G. Melton Bringing psychology to Capitol Hill: Briefings on child and family policy. , 1995 .

[43]  C. Mason,et al.  The Use of Epidemiological Methodology as a Means of Influencing Public Policy , 1999 .

[44]  G. Staines,et al.  The Politics of Analyzing Social Problems , 1972 .

[45]  P. Deleon Public policy and public service: Our professional duty. , 1988 .

[46]  Nathan Caplan,et al.  The Two-Communities Theory and Knowledge Utilization , 1979 .

[47]  G. Howard The role of values in the science of psychology , 1985 .

[48]  W. Bevan A sermon of sorts in three plus parts. , 1982 .

[49]  J. Shonkoff Science, policy, and practice: three cultures in search of a shared mission. , 2000, Child development.

[50]  S. Sarason The nature of problem solving in social action. , 1978 .

[51]  N. Denzin,et al.  Handbook of Qualitative Research , 1994 .

[52]  C. Weiss,et al.  Social scientists and decision makers look at the usefulness of mental health research. , 1981, The American psychologist.