Education research has important impacts on all four stages of the policy process. In the first stage, policy context and information gathering, policymakers may commission research and/or use existing research. In the second stage of policy definition, policymakers use research as they draft the policy. During the third stage of policy implementation, transparency and communication about the policy, including the research it’s based on, is crucial for all stakeholders. The fourth stage, policy evaluation, is education research in an of itself.
Yet, challenges persist. Rippner (2016) explains that “making connections between policymakers and researchers is not simple” (p. 154) and each party tends to distrust and blame the other. She suggests that “university departments, colleges, and/or centers could have dedicated professionals experiences in translating research for lay audiences and identifying appropriate communication channels” (p. 168). This is a fascinating suggestion, included in the conclusion, and with no further discussion of context.
While Rippner discusses the importance of publication in peer reviewed journals for academics’ careers, she does not explore that education research tends to be less valued than physical and biological science research. The funding tends to be less and the status of education researchers and the validity of their research is often openly questioned among academics. Scientific research, particularly the researched funded by NSF, generally includes funding for “outreach;” the hiring and support of professionals to “translat(e) research for lay audiences and identif(y) appropriate communication channels” (p. 168). Further, NSF funded projects are required to evaluate not only their research but also their outreach efforts. This is taken very seriously by NSF and it seems to me that researchers have gradually taken this responsibility more seriously as well. That education research does not have this funding or include these expectations, and is often working on a shoestring, is, I believe, a direct result of the stratification of disciplines within academia that Rippner does not discuss, combined with the pressure on education to be efficient, which she does. Hiring staff to disseminate education research would raise eyebrows in even the most public facing university.
Rippner explores the importance of intermediary organizations in sharing education research. I think she may not have emphasized this enough. Especially in the age of social media, this is how most people get most of their information about everything. According to Levie & Lentz (1982) infographics are especially convincing.
For most college students, place matters. Here’s what we know about the places where there’s no viable college option nearby. https://t.co/4dlEZPpRi6— The Chronicle of Higher Education (@chronicle) July 21, 2018
In my role as Director for Community Engagement at Sonoma State, I have, on occasion functioned as an intermediary organization to translate research for constituents, particularly when it helps make the case for my work. For example, in this blog post I published in 2016, I explore research that shows that service-learners make more money and get their first promotion before college graduates who never took a service-learning class. I was explicitly trying to influence policy at my own institution when I wrote it; I wanted faculty to consider integrating service-learning pedagogy into their courses. While the context of the study is significantly different in many ways from our institution, and while the majority of the original article is about an innovative research method, I translated the parts that made sense in our context and for my purposes. Rippner would surely be concerned with my picking and choosing in how I present this study. Interestingly, to this day, this groundbreaking research is almost always unknown and surprising to faculty, and even my own counterparts, when I bring it up. Not only are we challenged by communicating academic research to policy makers, we’re also not that great at communicating it among ourselves.
References
Levie, W. J. & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research, Educational Communication and Technology.
Rippner, J. (2016). The American education policy landscape.
Agreed there are certainly challenges facing policymakers as they make their way through the policy process and acknowledge it certainly isn’t a simple process, although you do a good job of laying the process out in a clear manner. It seems that no one really trusts anyone else and everyone is always looking for someplace or someone to put the blame. This, of course, holds true for outside of policy making as well. It just seems to be more fierce within the political realm because everyone has to defend her/his own territory. Accountability is no longer standard. You make a good point when discussing the value of educational policy vs. physical and/or science research and how the validity of educational research is openly questioned. You raise a valid point about what Rippner doesn’t say about that may be at the center of what’s wrong with educational policy and research, and the missing link between the two.
ReplyDeleteThe sharing of resources -- between academics, researchers and policy makers -- is a critical piece that is missing from the policy discussion. Intermediary organizations, hopefully those that offer non-partisan and factually based information, have much to contribute to the process. How to get the line of communication open has its own set of challenges. Yes, it’s true there is more information at our fingertips than ever before as we maneuver through the Information Age, but it is also beginning to fulfill the prophecies of Orwell’s 1984 novel in which no one knows what information can be trusted and how to find the information a second time. As always, thanks for sharing your sharp insight into missing in the discussion.