Research for policy: impact, uptake, or silence?

Whilst many research papers dutifully include an almost mandatory, de rigueur closing section on “conclusions and implications”, whether researchers believe that policy makers will actually take any notice of research findings (e.g., research utilization and mobilization) is a pious hope, often the optimism of innocence. Unsettling questions facing academics are: “Has your research made any difference?”; “Has anyone acted on – rather than simply cited – your research?”; “Who is your research for?”; and “Who, outside academia, has read or used your research?”

In an era in which calls for evidence-based or evidence-informed policy are loud and long from many quarters, and in which research evidence is so plentiful and easily available that even the most ardent enthusiast cannot keep up with it, it is astonishing how little attention is paid to so much research by policy makers. Of course, some research makes the headlines, often that which affirms, or indeed calls into question, policy makers’ agendas, but the policy impact and uptake of thousands of other research papers seem to be negligible, even zero.

This is not new. A landmark publication (Anderson & Biddle, 1991), containing papers by leading educationists, gave a plethora of reasons why this should be and what can be done to bridge the gap between researchers, policy makers, and front-line practitioners in education. Since then, several studies (e.g., Cherney, Povey, Head, Boreham, & Ferguson, 2012; Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Hemsley-Brown & Sharp, 2003; Levin, 2011, 2013; Lingard, 2013; Vanderlinde & Van Braak, 2010) restate the gap, for example, in terms of parties inhabiting “different orbits”, “epistemic communities”, “different cultures”, and “variant temporalities” (Lingard, 2013, p. 126), and offer suggestions for how to close it.

However, the uptake of research in some areas of social policy seems to be stronger than in education. For example, Mitton, Adair, McKenzie, Patten, and Perry (2007), writing about health care (267 citations to date) advise greater “interchange” between research users and research producers (p. 729). Bornmann (2013), writing about information science (53 citations to date), suggests that research findings must be “converted into marketable and consumable products” (p. 217) in order to bring societal benefit. Oliver, Innvar, Lorenc, Woodman, and Thomas (2014) (69 citations to date) comment that timely access to relevant high-quality research is a problem in some spheres of public policy; they exclude education from their focus, and note the importance of collaboration and improved relationships between researchers and policy makers (and call for greater clarity in what is meant by “policy”, “policy makers”, and “evidence”).

But education seems to stubbornly resist efforts at improving the impact and uptake of research evidence in terms of policy making, and citation rates are often low. Whitty (2006) (54 citations to date) notes the potential conflict between researchers and policy makers. Lingard (2013) (14 citations to date), discussing the impact of educational research on policy making, notes the “contested terrains” of educational research and policy making (p. 126). Levin (2013) (20 citations to date) comments on the need for links to be made between “the production of research, the end use of research, and the intermediary processes that link these two” (p. 2). Cherney et al. (2012) (21 citations to date) note the need for academics in education “to engage more closely with policy-makers and practitioners” (p. 23), collaborating in the generation and uptake of research knowledge. As they state: “knowledge translation activities” are not well understood in the social science academy (p. 30). Educational research has much to offer policy makers, but its impact and uptake are at best disappointing; silence is a powerful condemnation.

The papers in the present issue have serious implications for policy makers, and the first three of these set out clearly what these are.

Olcay Yavuz, studying the Comprehensive College Readiness Access and Success Program (CCRASP) in America, notes that “since increasing underrepresented urban students’ college persistence requires multifaceted approaches and collaborative efforts, both federal, state, and school officials and educational leaders should constantly collaborate to deliver adequate student services and educational reforms in urban schools”.

Seong Won Han, in a cross-national study of “the degree to which standards-based external examinations are associated with a student’s propensity for pursuing science-related professional occupations” advises that “policymakers and researchers must pay attention to the negative consequences of standards-based external examination reforms for non-cognitive outcomes such as motivations and occupational expectations” in respect of “fostering students’ interests in pursuing science-related careers”.

Kathleen Madigan, Richard Cross, Keith Smolkowski, and Lisa Strycker investigate “the long-term impact of schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports (PBIS) on student academic achievement” in America. The authors note that “[p]arents, policymakers, and educators recognize the need for students to complete high school with solid skills and knowledge … . Yet, school disruptions remain a significant challenge”. For policy makers, they suggest that “PBIS programmes, such as Safe & Civil Schools Foundations, may offer a viable solution to these problems when implemented with moderate to high fidelity”.

The final paper, by Stephen Morris, Triin Edovald, Cheryl Lloyd, and Zsolt Kiss, focuses on “causal mechanisms within the context of school-based randomised controlled trials” in researching cross-age peer-tutoring interventions in the UK. Although their stated target is researchers, in fact their work has direct and immediate implications for policy makers, as, rather than the black-box approach to defining “what works”, the authors argue that “programme theory and articulation of mechanisms are essential in enhancing causal explanation and promoting the accumulation of knowledge of what works and why in classroom settings”. Policy makers as well as researchers should study causes and casual mechanisms, not just symptoms or outcomes, if their policy targets are really to improve education and student performance. It is an important message.

Each of the papers carries important implications of research for policy makers. If only policy makers would read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them.