The Evolving Relationship between Researchers and Public Policy

WHEN IT comes to the role of research in shaping public policy and debate, one might reasonably argue that this is the best of times. No Child Left Behind (NCLB), with its frequent mention of evidence-based decision making, has underscored the role that objective knowledge should play in a democratic society. The Institute of Education Sciences, through its grant policies, promotion of randomized field trials, and its What Works Clearinghouse, (1) has provided detailed road maps of what greater reliance on strong research design might mean. Research findings and debates get deep coverage in such outlets as Education Week and instant coverage in the blogosphere. And advocacy groups appear anxious to enlist researchers as spokespersons and draw on social science evidence to add legitimacy to their causes. Paradoxically, it might just as well be argued that this is the worst of times. Among policy makers and many scholars, educational research has a reputation of being amateurish, unscientific, and generally beside the point. Exacerbating matters are high-profile tussles between prominent researchers publicly disparaging one another's methods and interpretations. Researchers disagree; that is neither new nor a matter of concern. But the portrayal of the debates in the public arena reinforces cynicism with regard to the independence and potential contribution of good scientific techniques. In this article, I highlight five broad structural changes that are potentially changing the demand for research, the availability and type of data, and the way research enters the public realm as part of ongoing policy and political debates. (2) NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND THE DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH Think tanks and advocacy organizations regularly disseminate their own studies or summarize the work of others electronically. As an indication of the scale of this activity, Andrew Rotherham's blog, Eduwonk, gets about 1,200 to 1,400 visitors every day and includes 97 links to other education blogs, 12 links to sites providing education news and analysis, and 30 links to policy and political blogs that cover education along with other issues. In an earlier era, the normal cycle for policy research included submission to a peer-reviewed journal, double-blind review, and requirements for revision (nine months or more from acceptance to publication). There was generally a reluctance to cite research until it had been vetted through these slower and more meticulous processes. New technologies for dissemination have compressed the time between initial results and public release. "The cycle of news is evolving," reports Howie Schaffer, who oversees the Public Education Network's Weekly NewsBlast. He continues: The weeklies like TIME don't try to break news anymore; they try to have relevant analysis. The daily papers try not to get burned breaking news that they know may evolve significantly throughout the day. The e-newsletters try to beat the bloggers to the story ... so everyone is trying to keep their content fresh. (3) Researchers often feel pressure to get their results out there "now," partly out of fear of being scooped and partly out of a belief that the window of opportunity to influence policy debates is open for shorter and shorter periods of time. When speed becomes critical, normal processes for refining, checking, and simply deliberating about evidence can be short-circuited. This is especially the case in politically charged arenas in which groups with tactical interests in advancing or blocking specific policy actions can co-opt the process. Researchers may acknowledge the limitations of their own data and design, but those caveats are often the first things to be stripped from the message as others take it up. In practice, research that aligns with ideological cleavages is more likely to be pushed into the public realm, thus blurring the distinction between advocacy and unbiased analysis. …